2026:JHHC:21517 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1840 of 2004 --------- [Against the judgment of conviction dated 13.10.2004 and sentence dated 15.10.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa in S.T. No. 118 of 2002 arising out of Chaibasa (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 28 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 108 of 2002.] --------- Pradeep Kumar Ganguly @ Pradeep Ganguly, Son of Dilip Kumar Ganguly, Resident of 30 Club Road, Parmatho Nagar P.S.- Parsudih Tatanagar, District- East Singhbhum. ……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. ----------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. On: 30th June, 2026 Pronounced On: 20/07/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.10.2004 & 15.10.2004 respectively passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 118 of 2002 arising out of Chaibasa (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 28 of 2002 corresponding to G.R. No. 108 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 365 & 366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years for each of the offence. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 09.03.2002, informant’s daughter aged about 17 years had gone to appear in an examination at Tata College, Jamshedpur. It is alleged that at about 4:30 2026:JHHC:21517 2 | P a g e P.M., when informant’s son went to the college to bring back his sister and waited for considerable time, but she did not come out and met with the informant’s son. The informant alongwith his family members and relatives started searching out his daughter and in course of inquiry, he came to know that the present appellant, who resides in Parsudih, Jamshedpur has abducted his daughter. The informant and other family members went to Parsudih, where parents of the accused, his sister and Fufi (Buwa) told that the informant’s daughter has eloped with Pradeep Ganguli (present appellant). The informant also came to know that his daughter has taken Rs. 10,000/- in cash and some jewelries of her mother while proceeding with the accused. Therefore, he suspected that the accused has abducted his daughter for forcibly solemnizing marriage with her. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant, F.I.R. being Chaibasa (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 28 of 2002 was registered on 11.03.2002 for the offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. against the above named accused. 5. In the course of investigation, the victim girl was recovered from Parsudih and the accused was also arrested. The statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and the victim was also sent for medical examination. It was also disclosed by the victim that the accused forcibly took her away on a Tatasumo vehicle and put vermilion on her head and also put on mangalsutra and got her signature on some plain paper. 2026:JHHC:21517 3 | P a g e 6. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 366A of the I.P.C. against the present appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T No. 118 of 2002 was registered. 7. Initially, charge was framed against the accused under Section 366A of the I.P.C. All the witnesses were examined including the investigating officer and statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., thereafter, vide order dated 06.10.2004, the learned Trial Court altered/amended the charged by adding two separate charges under Section 365 & 366 of the I.P.C. against the accused, which was also denied by him. Thereafter, no witnesses were recalled or re-examined on the newly added charge and the impugned judgment was pronounced convicting and sentencing the appellant as stated above. 8. In the course of trial, altogether 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary and material evidence:- I. Exhibit-1: Medical report II. Exhibit-2: Written report III. Exhibit-3: Endorsement and Signature of victim girl on statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. IV. Exhibit-4: Statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. V. Exhibit-5: Formal F.I.R. 9. On the other hand, the case of the defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. However, one witness namely Prabhuram Prasad Sao as DW-1 has been examined by the defence and 2026:JHHC:21517 4 | P a g e following documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence:- a) Ext.-A : Entries in the diary from 01.01.2001 to 04.02.2001 b) Ext.-B : Entries in the diary from 01.01.1999 to 17.04.1999 c) Ext.-C to C/20 : 21 letters written by victim girl d) Ext.-D & D/1 : Two postal envelops e) Ext.-E : Signature of victim girl on photocopy of application addressed to S.P., Jamshedpur f) Ext.-F : Original Admit Case of victim girl. g) Ext.-J : An application to S.P., Jamshedpur h) Ext.- I to I/b : Three colour photos of victim girl. 10. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Sections 365 & 366 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 11. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that admittedly there was love affair between victim girl and the present appellant. The date of birth of the victim girl is 22.11.1983 and the date of occurrence is 09.03.2002, therefore, at the time of occurrence, victim girl was aged about 18 years & 06 months and had sufficient competency to distinguish between good and evil and whatever is against her interest. It is also flashed in the F.I.R. itself that the victim took out Rs. 10,000/- and some jewelries of her mother and 2026:JHHC:21517 5 | P a g e then went to attend college and in the evening by her own sweet will called upon the accused and eloped with him. The charge under Section 365 of the I.P.C. was amended at the fag end of the trial just at the stage of argument but without taking any further evidence. The accused was also convicted thereunder without any evidence on record. Similarly, offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. is also not constituted against the appellant, as the necessary ingredient of inducement or threat or any use of force by deceitful means in order to taking away victim girl by accused, has not been proved by the prosecution rather conduct of the victim herself shows that she voluntarily accompanied with the appellant to solemnize marriage with him. It is also admitted by the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that when the appellant put vermillion on her head and also gave her managalsutra, she peacefully resided with the appellant without any hue and cry until both were apprehended by the police due to F.I.R. lodged by father of the victim girl. The learned Trial Court has miserably failed to consider the evidence available on record in relation to ingredients of the offence for which the appellant has been indicted and found guilty, therefore, the learned Trial Court has arrived at wrong conclusion. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal, unwarranted and beyond the weight, which is liable to set aside and the appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him. Submission on behalf of State:- 12. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, defending the 2026:JHHC:21517 6 | P a g e impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant, has submitted that the victim girl has consistently testified that she was abducted by the present appellant and forcibly put vermillion on her head and mangalsutra was also put on by the accused in her neck. She was also secretly and wrongfully confined and recovered by the police. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 14. The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error or law calling for any interference or not? 15. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial as well as definition of Sections 362, 365 & 366 of the I.P.C. “Section 362:- Whoever (a) by force or show of force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, or to move to a place other than the place of destination of that person, or (b) takes any person away from any place without the consent of that person or some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said to be abduct that person.” Section 365:- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 2026:JHHC:21517 7 | P a g e description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 366:- 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; [ and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.] 16. PW-1 Manju Vijay, aunt of the victim girl, has stated that on 09.03.2002, victim girl had gone to appear in the examination at Tata College, Chaibasa but did not return. Then, she was being searched by family members but no clue was found. Later on, the victim girl was recovered by police from Jamshedpur. When the victim girl returned, she told this witness that accused Pradeep Ganguli had kidnapped her. She is acquainted with the accused. He used to visit in her mohalla. PW-2 Shiv Shankar Vijay is the brother of the informant. He has also stated that on 09.03.2002 victim girl had gone to appear in an examination but did not return. When her brother Amit Vijay had gone to Tata College to bring her back. Thereafter, this witness alongwith other family members started searching her. In the course of search, suspicion was raised against the present appellant that he has enticed the victim girl to solemnize marriage with her. His father lodged the F.I.R., 2026:JHHC:21517 8 | P a g e thereafter, victim girl was recovered from Jamshedpur by police alongwith the accused from his village Parsudih. PW-3 Bandana Vijay is sister of the victim girl. She has also stated in the same line as PW-1 and PW-2 and thereafter the victim girl was recovered from Parsudih village of the accused on 13.03.2002. In her cross-examination, she admits that in the year 2002, she had passed B.A. final examination and the victim girl was three years younger than her. This witness has told her own age to be 22 years. PW-4 Amit Vijay @ Ankit is the brother of the victim girl. Accordingly to his evidence, on 09.03.2002 in the morning, he left his sister to Tata College. Thereafter, he again went there in the evening at about 4:00 P.M. to bring her sister back but till evening, she did not return. Then, he came to his house and narrated the above story to his parents. He has stated nothing else in his cross examination in chief and nothing has been elicited in cross examination to reconcile his testimony. PW-5 Dr. Bal Krishna Sahani states that on 16.03.2002, he was posted as M.O. at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. On that day, by the order of the Civil Surgeon, Chaibasa, a Medical Board was constituted consisting of this witness, Dr. (Mrs.) Deep Shikha Verma and Dr. B. K. Pandit for age verification of the victim girl. On the basis of clinical, radiological finding, the age of the victim girl was ascertained to be above 18 years and below 19 years. This witness has further deposed that earlier the victim girl was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Deep Shikha Verma on 14.03.2002, where she had requested for aged determination 2026:JHHC:21517 9 | P a g e of the victim by board and on the basis of which the said medical board was constituted. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that before 16.03.2002, he was not present there. He has further deposed that he has not submitted any separate report except Exhibit-1. PW-6 Sri Krishna Vijay is the informant of this case. This witness has corroborated the contents of his written report and has further stated that on 09.03.2002, his daughter had gone to Tata College, Chaibasa for appearing in examination with her brother Amit Vijay. In the evening, Amit Vijay went to bring her back but she did not meet. Thereafter, he was searching alongwith his family members and came to know that accused Pradeep Ganguli had enticed and taken away his daughter. The accused was working under Gurumukh Singh, who is landlord of this witness and he was not coming since the date of occurrence on his duty. Then, he suspected against his involvement. Thereafter, he went to Parsudih and came to know that the present accused has taken away his daughter elsewhere. On 13.03.2002, his daughter was recovered alongwith the accused from Jamshedpur and he got information through the police and brought back his daughter. His daughter disclosed him that she was confined in a room by the accused at Jamshedpur in the custody of his sister where she was forced to wear sari and the accused put vermillion on her head. This witness has been examined at length but nothing has been elicited as regards the aforesaid testimony. Although, this witness admits that the contents of the F.I.R. lodged by him are absolutely true. He categorically admits that in his written 2026:JHHC:21517 10 | P a g e report, he has mentioned that his daughter had taken Rs. 10,000/- cash and some jewelries of her mother while going to college. He has denied the suggestion of defence that there was love affair between the accused and his daughter and there was exchange of love letters between them. He has also denied the suggestion of defence that the victim girl had already solemnized marriage with the appellant prior to this occurrence within knowledge of this witness which was protested by him. He was adamant to send the victim girl to Rajasthan after completion of her examination. Therefore, on 08.03.2002 the victim girl sent a letter to Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur and also went to parsudih police station. Thereafter, he has lodged this false case. PW-7 is the Victim girl. She has disclosed her age to be 19 years on the date of deposition, i.e., on 06.08.2003. According to her evidence, on 09.03.2002, it was her last paper of B.A. final examination. She went with her brother Amit Vijay on motorcycle to Tata College, Chaibasa for appearing in the examination, where his brother went away leaving her at the college gate. She has further deposed that when she was entering through the college gate, in the meantime, Pradeep Ganguli (present appellant) met her and called her for some urgent talk but she refused to talk with him, then the accused again requested her to talk only for five minutes and brought her towards the gate of the college, where a Tata sumo of white colour vehicle was parked. The accused forcibly got boarded this witness in the said vehicle and thereafter proceeded. She raised alarm and requested to leave her for appearing in the examination but she was kept under the sheet of the vehicle and also 2026:JHHC:21517 11 | P a g e was slapped by the accused, due to which she became unconscious. She was brought in a village house and was confined in a room, where sister of Pradeep Ganguli was present who disclosed her name as Pratima. She was insisting her to solemnize marriage with Pradeep Ganguli. One lady, who told herself as Buwa of Pradeep Ganguli was also present there and pressurized her to solemnize marriage with Pradeep Ganguli but she declined. She was not allowed to come out from the said room and both ladies were constantly living with her. She was confined in the room for about four days. On 13.03.2002, Pradeep Ganguli forcibly took her signature on some blank papers an also forced her to write some love letters. Thereafter, sister and buwa of Pradeep Ganguli forced her to wear sari, put vermillion on head and mangalsutra in her neck. Her photographs were also taken while mangalsutra was being put on her neck by Pradeep Ganguli. Thereafter, the case was lodged by her father and the accused brought her to Pursudih police station, from where, message was given to Chaibasa (Mufassil) police station and her statement was recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate at Chaibasa court, which is marked Ext.- 3 and her medical examination was also conducted. In her cross-examination, this witness admits that her native place is situated in Rajasthan state, where her elder father resides with family and she used to go there. Her first admission was in Scott Girls School, from where she complete till matriculation but she has not disclosed the passing year of matriculation. She also admits that she was acquainted with the accused Pradeep Ganguli for 3-4 years who was working in the 2026:JHHC:21517 12 | P a g e wood depot of Harbajan Singh, brother of Gurumukh Singh, landlord of her rented house. Three photographs were shown to this witness and marked material ext.- I, I/a & I/b. She admits to be her photographs but denies where it was taken and also denies that above photographs were taken in the room of the accused situated at Jhinkpani road while she was studying in school and house to visit with him. She also admits that 2-3 love letters were got written by her forcibly. A diary of the victim girl in which some shayries and cooking recipes has been written by this witness from 01.01.2001 to 03.03.2001, which has also been admitted in her writing, marked as Ext.- A and the diary of LIC of the year 1999 is has also been admitted by this witness to be in her own writing from January, 1999 to 17.04.1999 marked Ext.- B. It was admitted that twenty one letters were written by this witness but denied the dates which is marked Ext.- C - C/20. Two other letters with envelop of postal department has also been admitted and proved as Ext.- D & D/1. She further explains that above letters were written in between 12.03.2002 to 13.03.2002 when she was in custody of the accused. In her cross- examination, she has denied that on the date of occurrence, she took Rs. 10,000/- cash and some jewelries of her mother to go with the accused. She has also admitted that during the period of confinement at sister's house of the accused, she was neither forced by the accused for illicit relationship nor the accused admitted to establish any physical relationship with her. Her attention has been drawn towards her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by police for the purpose of contradiction, this witness also accepts her signature on a typed letter 2026:JHHC:21517 13 | P a g e dated 13.03.2002 addressed to Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur marked Ext.- E but she has not delivered such letter to S.P. There is nothing else in her cross-examination worth mentioning. PW-8 Meena Devi, is the mother of the victim girl. She has stated nothing in her deposition. PW-9 S.I. Anil Kumar Sharma is the investigating officer of this case. This witness has deposed the he took the charge of investigation after demise of S.I. Ayub Kureshi. He received medical report of the victim girl and got recorded the statement of victim girl under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. In his cross-examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that the accused had got written on some papers by the victim girl. 17. On the other hand, one witness, namely, Parsuram Prasad Sao DW-1 has been examined by the defence. This witness is the typist in the campus of S.D.O., Court, who had proved that he typed the application on dictation of a girl who had come with a boy and proved this letter as Ext.- J. 18. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and the evidences of oral, documentary as well as material exhibits available on record. 19. From the aforesaid discussion of evidences both oral as well as documentary and material witnesses examined in this case, particularly, the victim girl, and other material witnesses of the case, it appears that initially the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of written report of father of 2026:JHHC:21517 14 | P a g e the victim girl, where the informant has alleged that in the morning, his daughter aged about 17 years' old had gone to appear in examination at Tata College, Chaibasa but in the evening at about 4:30 P.M., when his son went to receive the victim girl from the college, he did not find her there. On search, it came in light that the present appellant had taken away the victim girl. It was also alleged that the victim girl had taken away Rs. 10,000/- in cash and some jewelries of her mother. The police after two days, on 13.03.2002, recovered from village of the appellant at Parsudih. Police after investigation, submitted charge-sheet under Section 366A of the I.P.C. but the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 365 & 366 of the I.P.C. after evaluating the evidence on record. 20. It further appears that the victim was medically examined by PW-5 Dr. Bal Krishna Sahani for her age determination, for which a medical board was constituted, where it was observed that the victim girl was above 18 years. There is no other thing in the medical report of victim girl, which is marked Ext.-1. It further appears from the Ext.- F, which is Admit Card of examination that her date of birth is 22.11.1983 and the occurrence took place on 11.03.2002, therefore, at the time of occurrence, her age is assessed to be more than 18 years. 21. It further appears from the evidence of the witnesses that all the witnesses except PW-5 and PW-9 are of same family, i.e., father, mother, aunt, brother and sister. PW-9, the investigating officer has not stated anywhere that he had gone to the place of occurrence with regard to inquiry about the abduction of the victim girl. Since, victim girl had 2026:JHHC:21517 15 | P a g e gone to appear for examination and she has deposed that she had entered the college gate, thereafter, the accused called her and forcibly dashed her into the car and taken away can't be believed in view of presence of gate keepers and crowd of students, who might have intervened, if the victim raised alarm against forcibly taking off by appellant. 22. It further appears that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate defence evidence marked Ext. C - C/20 and D – D/1, which shows that the victim girl has written many love letters addressed to the appellant, which shows the affair between them and there was no such grievance of any kind with the accused regarding his conduct and behavior towards the victim girl at time of her confinement in the room. Medical examination report of the victim also does not corroborate the prosecution story. 23. In the instant case as noticed above, there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution regarding manner of occurrence. The evidence available on record does not satisfy the conscience of this Court to uphold the conviction of the appellant rather I find serious error of law while appreciating the evidence of prosecution by the learned Trial Court, who has ignored the material discrepancies in the evidence of above witnesses. Therefore, it is not safe to place blind reliance upon the evidence of victim girl, which appears to be tainted with falsehood. There is no corroborative piece of evidence to support the prosecution case. 2026:JHHC:21517 16 | P a g e 24. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. 25. This appeal is allowed. 26. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of. 27. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 28. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated: 20/07/2026 Rahul- NAFR Uploaded On: 21/07/2026