Abduction means use of force or deceitful means to compel or induce a person to go from any place.
Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc. – Whoever kidnaps or abducts and woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to many any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”
According to the definition given in Section 361 IPC kidnapping means:
Whoever takes or entices any minor under [sixteen] years of age if a male, or under [eighteen] years of age if a female, or any other person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.”
According to definition given in Section 362 abduction means:
Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.”
A bare perusal of the material available on record goes to show that the accused / appellant had never compelled the prosecutrix by any deceitful means to accompany him for the purpose of marrying her nor was she forced or seduced to illicit intercourse by him. On the contrary, it is revealed from the evidence of the witnesses that the prosecutrix accompanied the accused / appellant of her own and went first to the railway station and then to Bhilai by train and in spite of having sufficient opportunity during this long period, she did not make any effort to come out of his clutches even after coming across several persons on the way. More so, at one stage the prosecutrix says that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused / appellant thrice but later she resiles from it and states that no intercourse had taken place with her. Record also shows that the report was lodged by her at the instance of one Bandhu and other family members. More startlingly, the prosecutrix herself has stated that had mother of the accused / appellant not lodged the report, she also would not have done so against the accused / appellant. As regards her age, Dr. Shekhar Chaterjee (PW – 3) who had taken x-ray of the prosecutrix and given his report Ex. P – 2 has categorically stated that at the relevant time she was about 17-18 years of age and if margin of two years applied thereto, she was undisputedly major on the date of incident.
To sum up, the evidence of the witnesses particularly that of the prosecutrix is too untrustworthy to inspire the confidence of this Court. The view taken by the Court below convicting the accused/appellant u/s 366 IPC being based on mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record needs substitution by way of correctional one..Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. Judgment impugned is hereby set aside. Accused / appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. [ (2011) 3 MPJR 15 CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT JAGDISH CHANDRA RAI — Appellant THE STATE OF M.P. (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)