Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.673 of 2009 ====================================================== Mahendra Ram son of Late Gulam Ram, resident of Village- Panchgachhiya, P.S. Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Batahoo Mahto son of Chhedi Mahto, 3. Kaushalya Devi, wife of Chhedi Mahto, Resident of village- Panchgachhiya, P.S. Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP For O.P. No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 11-10-2012 Heard. By the impugned judgment and order dated 31st March 2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 314 of 2003/ 6 of 2004 by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, accused opposite party no. 2 and 3 have been acquitted for charges under [STATUTE] . Occurrence of abduction is said to have taken place on 05.08.1997. The petitioner filed a petition of complaint with respect to the said occurrence on 08.09.1997, i.e. after more than one month. According to the prosecution case, the wife of the petitioner was abducted by accused persons on 05.08.1997, but learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that till date she has not been traced out. On the basis of the materials available on record, there is nothing to show that the victim lady was abducted with an intention to compel her to solemnize her marriage with another person against her will or was seduced to illicit intercourse. The ingredients for constituting offence under Patna High Court CR. REV. No.673 of 2009 (3) dt.11-10-20 2/ 212 [STATUTE] are completely missing from the present case. Though altogether 8 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case, but admittedly the Investigating Officer has not been examined. The learned trial court has recorded a finding of fact that P.Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 6 have not supported the prosecution case showing the complicity of the accused opposite party no. 2 and 3 in the commission of the crime in question. P.W. 6 is none else, but the father of the victim, who has also not supported the prosecution case. In the aforesaid background, the learned trial court has given the benefits of doubts to the accused opposite party no. 2 and 3 and has acquitted them of all the charges. In the given facts, this Court does not find it a fit case for exercise of its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal, particularly with respect to the occurrence, which had been taken place in the year 1997 and since then more than 15 years have elapsed. In the result, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 366

Statute Text:
Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage or to cause her defilement 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; 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.