2026:JHHC:16539 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 293 of 2005 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 03.03.2005 and Order of sentence dated 05.03.2005 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, FTC No. V, Ranchi in Sessions Case No. 330 of 2001, arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 110 of 2000] ------ Jamil Akhtar @ Nanhey, Son of Md. Subham, Resident of Nadi Ground, Mojahidnagar, Khet Mohalla, P.S.-Hindpiri, Dist. –Ranchi, Jharkhand … .... …. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rameshwar Singh, Son of Late Bishun Singh, Resident of Harmu Dhela Toli, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Argora, Dist. Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Sonal Pandey, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ------ CAV On 21/04/2026 Pronounced On 09/06/2026 Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 03.03.2005 and order of sentence dated 05.03.2005 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C. No.-V, Ranchi in Sessions Case No. 330 of 2001 (arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 110 of 2000, G.R. No. 2444 of 2000) whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the State. Factual Matrix:- 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that informant’s daughter aged about 16 years (hereinafter referred to as “Victim Girl”) was forcibly taken away by the present appellant on 31.10.2000, at about 8:15 AM, while, the informant had gone to Raj Nursing Home, Main Road, Ranchi along with his wife and the victim girl. It is alleged that a student was standing nearby, who came near the victim girl and asked her to talk with him only for two minutes, which she declined and proceeded on her way. It is further alleged that when the informant along with his above family members reached near J.J. Industry, Main Road, Ranchi, then, again the said boy riding on a motorcycle got the Rikshaw stopped and got his daughter forcibly down from the Rickshaw and went to Aakash Motors at upper floor. The informant’s daughter got down from Aakash Motors, thereafter, the present appellant boarded the victim girl on his motorcycle and fled away towards Sujata Cinema Hall. The informant raised alarm and followed the said boy to some distance, where Prem Verma (P.W.-3) told the name of said boy as Jamil Akhtar, resident of Hindpirhi who has enticed away his daughter. It is claimed by the informant that his daughter has been kidnapped/abducted by the accused for the purpose of solemnizing marriage with her. 4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered, for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. After completion of 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 3 investigation, charge sheet was submitted against above named accused. 5. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 330 of 2001 was registered. The accused denied the charge leveled against him and claimed to be tried. 6. In the course of trial, altogether 6 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.-1 Rameshwar Singh (Informant-cum-father of the victim girl) P.W.-2 Kanti Devi (mother of the victim girl) P.W.-3 Prem Verma P.W.-4 Victim Girl P.W.-5 Dr. Rita Lal P.W.-6 Madan Mohan Pathak (Investigating Officer) 7. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution: - Ext.-1 Signature of the informant on Fardbeyan Ext.-2 Medical Report of the Victim Ext.-3 Fardbeyan Ext.-3/1 Endorsement on Fardbeyan Ext.-4 Formal F.I.R. 8. On the other hand, the case of the defence is total denial from occurrence and false implication due to love affair with the victim girl. It is pleaded by the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the victim has accompanied with the accused after taking permission from her parents and both went to Panchghat, from where, they returned in late night, then, the victim girl went to the house of her friend. The defence has also examined two witnesses namely D.W.-1 Rashida Khatoon, student of I.A., Second Year, 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 4 friend of Victim Girl. D.W.-2 Faizal Rashid, Teacher, D.A.V. Public School, Bariatu. 9. Apart from oral testimony of above witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the defence:- Ext. -A and A/1 Eight Pages Love Letters Ext. X - X/6 Positive Photos of the Victim along with accused and her friend Ext. X/7 to X/9 Three photos 10. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence, arrived at conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused under Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced him, as stated above, which has been assailed in this Appeal. Submissions on behalf of appellant: - 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that P.W.-1 namely Rameshwar Singh and P.W.-2 namely Kanti Devi who happens to be parents of the victim girl, in their cross-examination, have categorically admitted that their daughter went for picnic on the date and time of occurrence with her friends including the present appellant. It is further submitted that the photographs produced by the defence clearly established the love affair between the victim girl and the appellant. The contents of letters were also admitted by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. It is further submitted that P.W.-3 namely Prem Verma has been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also disclosed that the victim girl was major, on the date of occurrence and she proceeded with the appellant, on her own sweet will and with the permission of their 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 5 parents, therefore, no offence under Section 366 of the IPC is attracted in this case. It is further submitted that P.W.-5 Dr.Rita Lal has examined the victim and assessed her age about 18 years, on the date of occurrence and she was not subjected to sexual inter-course. It is further submitted that after recovery of the victim girl, she denied going to her parental home, hence, she was sent to care home, Patna by order of the learned C.J.M. and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the victim was pressurized/compelled by her parents to depose against the appellant in the care home. It is also submitted that the victim girl has given go- bye to her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was given under pressure of her parents. It is further submitted that the victim was simply seated at the pillion of the motorcycle of the appellant and without raising hue and cry accompanied him which also shows the consent of the victim girl, who was major at the time of occurrence. The manner of occurrence as stated by the parents of the victim girl happened at a busy place like Main Road, Ranchi, if forcible, was itself impossible. It is further submitted that the defence evidence has not been considered by the learned trial Court insisting upon negative of the photos. The learned trial Court had sufficient opportunity to see both the victim as well as the appellant during trial but the learned trial Court declined to admit the photos even for collateral purposes to arrive at conclusion that there was love affair between the appellant and the victim girl and all these photographs were prior to the occurrence. Similarly, the letters Ex-A and A/1 have 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 6 also not been considered in right perspective, which was identified by parents of the victim girl but the victim girl denied the same due to social stigma. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of appellant suffers from serious error of law and based upon non-consideration of the material evidence available on record and liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. In the alternative, it is submitted that the occurrence is of the year 2000. At that time, the appellant was also aged about 21 years, having no criminal background and never punished for any offence. He has undergone agony of trial for more than 25 years. The victim girl has also settled her life, after solemnizing marriage with another boy. The appellant has also got married and living a peaceful life. During pendency of trial and post-conviction, the appellant has remained in custody near about 4 months. It was the first offence of the appellant and he was also teenager, hence, appellant may be extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned trial Court. Submissions on behalf of the State 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant has submitted that from the school certificate of the victim girl, it appears that she was below 16 years of age and her consent does not play any role in constituting the offence under Section 366 of the IPC. It is further submitted that admittedly, the accused has enticed and taken away the minor girl 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 7 with him with intention to forcibly perform marriage with her and confined in his home, from where, she was recovered by the police, is itself sufficient evidence against the appellant. The learned trial Court has scrutinized oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record adduced by both the parties and very reasoned judgment has been passed. This appeal has no merits and fit to be dismissed. 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 14. The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?” Analysis, reasons and decision: 15. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of the evidence adduced during trial of the case. 16. It appears that out of six witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution, P.W.-1 Rameshwar Singh, the father of the victim girl has corroborated the contents of his fardbeyan (Ext.-3) and specifically stated that while, he was returning from Kali Temple, Main Road, Ranchi and reached near J.J. Industry, then, present appellant stopped the Rikshaw and asked him to allow to talk with his daughter for two minutes but he resisted and proceeded further. Thereafter, the said boy again met near J.J. Industries Gate and again repeated his request to talk with the daughter of this witness, when he declined, then, the 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 8 appellant forcibly pulled down his daughter from Rikshaw and got boarded on his motorcycle and went away. He raised alarm, then, one Tea Seller namely Prem Verma (P.W.-3) told him that the boy, who has taken the victim girl is Jamil Akhtar of Hindipirhi. When he lodged the case, his daughter was recovered from the house of the accused. He has also deposed that Jamil Akhtar has abducted his daughter. This witness has not stated that his daughter told about any ill-treatment or put any pressure on his daughter to solemnize marriage with her. This witness was further cross-examined by the order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in criminal revision, wherein, this witness admits that on the date of occurrence, his daughter had gone along with her friend on his motorcycle. There was no threat or any kind of compulsion, rather, she had gone, on her own sweet will. Since his daughter did not return, till late night, hence, he lodged the case. He also admits that when his daughter returned, she disclosed that his friend has proposed her for marriage. He has also identified the photo of his daughter along with friend (appellant) and also letters written by his daughter marked as Ex.-A and A/1. P.W.-2 Kanti Devi is the mother of the victim and has corroborated the evidence of P.W.-1 and stated that the present appellant stopped them near Raj Hospital, while proceeding on Rikshaw and forcibly pulled down her daughter near J.J. Industries Gate and took away on his motorcycle. Her daughter was recovered by the police from the house of the accused. 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 9 In her cross-examination, she has disclosed the age of the victim as 16 years and she was studying in 10th Standard. She also admits that when her daughter returned to home, she disclosed that she had gone to Panchghat with her boyfriend. She has not disclosed her that said boy has proposed her to solemnize marriage. She also admits that the victim girl has now been married after attaining the age of majority. P.W.-3 Prem Verma has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.-4 is the victim girl, who has also deposed that on 31.10.2000 at about 8 to 8:30 am, she along with her parents went to Kali Temple and while returning, they had a Rikshaw and reached near Raj Hospital, Main Road, Ranchi, then, one boy met them and started saying to her father that he wants to talk with this witness. Her father and mother protested and forbad him from talking and proceeded on Rikshaw and reached Sujata Talkies near J.J. Industries, then again, said boy came on motorcycle, stopped the Rikshaw and forcibly got seated this witness on motorcycle and went towards Aakash Motors, from where, she was taken at motorcycle to Panchghat and thereafter, she was left in the late evening. She has further deposed that the accused was desiring to solemnize marriage with her, for that reason, she was kept in the house of accused, when, police reached at the house of the accused, then, she was recovered along with accused. Her medical examination was conducted by lady Doctor at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. She has identified the accused behind dock, who disclosed his name as Jamil Akhtar. 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 10 In her cross-examination, she has reiterated the aforesaid incident and also proved earlier statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. There is nothing in her cross-examination to rebut her aforesaid testimony. P.W.-5 Dr. Rita Lal has examined the victim girl on 02.11.2000 at 12:30 PM and has opined that the radiological report of the victim conducted at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi shows her age about 18 years. She has found no external or internal injury on any part of the body of the victim and no opinion about rape has been given. P.W.-6 Madan Mohan Pathak, S.I. is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant as Exhibit-3, formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-4, endorsement on Fardbeyan as Ext. 3/1. He has visited the place of occurrence and interrogated with the witnesses. The place of occurrence of this case is J.J. Industries Gate at Main Road, Ranchi within the jurisdiction of Chutia Police Station near Aakash Motors, Bajaj Auto Showroom. He reached the house of the accused Jamil Akhtar @ Nanhey at Mojahidnagar, Hindpiri and recovered the victim girl and also arrested the accused. The victim was sent for medical examination, for which, he has issued the requisition, which is marked as Ex.-5, after finding sufficient evidence, he has submitted charge sheet against him. 17. On the other hand, D.W.-1 Rashida Khatoon is the friend of the victim girl and her classmate. According to her, the victim girl had studied with her till class 8th with her. She has also identified the photographs of the victim girl along with her boyfriend (appellant) 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 11 and also two letters written by the victim girl to her boyfriend (appellant). She also stated that on the date of occurrence, she along with victim girl and the accused Jamil Akhtar @ Nanhey went to Panchghat for picnic, where she is also in the Photographs along with victim girl and the Nanhey @ Jamil Akhtar which is marked as X7 to X9 taken at Panchghat. She further states that on 31.10.2000, in the night, the victim girl stayed at her home and in the next day, she went to her home. D.W.-2 Faizal Rasheed is a teacher and neighbor of the accused. He has stated that on 01.11.2000, either, in the day or night, no raid was conducted in the house of the Jamil Akhtar by the police and the victim girl was not recovered from there. In his cross-examination, he admits that he has given the evidence in this case on request of Jamil Akhtar to help him. 18. At this juncture, the relevant provision of Section 366 of the IPC is extracted hereunder:- “366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry 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……” 19. From bare perusal of aforesaid provision to constitute the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, following ingredients must be proved by the prosecution:- i. Kidnapping or abducting of any woman; ii. Such kidnapping or abducting must be:- 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 12 (a) with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will; (b) 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” 20. In the instant case, the victim girl has denied any love affair with the appellant and she has also denied any photographs along with the appellant or any letters written to him. She has categorically stated that while she was returning along with her parents, appellant intercepted and took away her on his motorcycle. She was kept in the house of the appellant against her will and the accused was forcing her to solemnize marriage with him, but the police recovered both of them, from the house of the accused and she was saved. The manner of occurrence is also corroborated by P.W.-1 namely Rameshwar Singh and P.W.-2 Kanti Devi who happened to be parents of the victim girl (P.W.-4) that the accused has forcibly pulled her from Rikshaw and taken away on his motorcycle. It appears that the parents of the victim later on, due to some social stigma and for the sake of marriage of their daughter, entered into compromise with the appellant and called for further cross-examination, wherein they have told a different story that their daughter had gone for Picnic along with her boyfriend and girlfriend. Merely, because the parents have given different story after recall for further cross-examination, the testimony of the victim girl cannot be brushed aside. The aforesaid both the ingredients are fulfilled that the victim girl who was below 18 years at the time of occurrence was forcibly taken away/abducted by the accused with a view to solemnize marriage with her. The age of 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 13 the victim girl is not relevant for the purpose of offence of abduction and there was no consent of the victim girl as specifically stated by her. 21. In view of the above discussion and also going through the impugned judgment, I find that the learned trial Court has very wisely and aptly discussed the entire aspects of the case along with defence evidence and arrived at right conclusion about the guilt of the accused appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or infirmity calling for any interference in this appeal. 22. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears from the record that the appellant was also 20-21 years old, at the time of occurrence. There is some glimpses of love affair also on record between the appellant and the victim girl. Admittedly, the victim girl was married just after two years of the occurrence as stated by P.W.-2 Kanti Devi that on attaining the age of majority, she has solemnized marriage of her daughter. The appellant has also established his family life. It is also obvious that 25 years has been lapsed since the occurrence. Therefore, in this case, a balance has to be stricken between punitive/deterrent and reformative theory of punishment, keeping in view, the safeguard of the victim girl. The victim girl has also settled her life and the appellant has also reformed himself and leading his life in mainstream, hence, considering the nature of offence committed by the appellant, his age, character, antecedent and attending circumstances of the case, it appears expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of 2026:JHHC:16539 Cr. A (S.J.) No. 293 / 2005 14 Offenders Act to the appellant, instead of undergoing any substantive sentence of imprisonment, which may also affect his future career. 23. In view of above, the judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC is hereby upheld but so far as sentence is concerned, the appellant is directed to be released upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, within two months, from the date of this order, with condition to maintain peace and good behavior for one year from the date of furnishing the bond. 24. If the bond is not furnished within above stipulated time, the learned Trial Court shall issue notice upon the appellant to secure his attendance for furnishing the bond. 25. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellant shall be called upon to receive the sentence of imprisonment already awarded to him by the concerned trial court. 26. In view of above discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above 27. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 09/06/2026 Basant/-N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 10/06/2026