Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.04.2008 and 28.04.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Medinipur in connection with S. T. Case No.(XIX) February, 2007 the appellant has come before this Court with a prayer for setting aside the same.
(2.) According to the appellant, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses manifestly shows that there was no ill intention on behalf of the appellant accused to use the said girl for any immoral purpose.
(3.) The factual aspect needs to be revisited. The defacto complainant lodged the FIR that his minor daughter aged about 13 years was given a chocolate and after that the appellant took his daughter and brought her to Calcutta for some illegal purposes. In the evening he came to know that the present appellant took his daughter and he made contact with the daughter and came to know that she was engaged in some unsocial works at Calcutta. However, at the instance of his sister Madhuri and elder sister-in-law Bhagabati he got back his daughter. The victim daughter was given some sedative medicines and she became senseless. She was hospitalized for some days. Thereafter she was discharged. Ventilating this ill-episode the defacto complainant lodged the FIR and set the law into motion. In this case the prosecution is under an obligation to show with evidence that the victim was allured by the accused to accompany her. It is pertinent to mention that no where in the evidence it is stated that the victim was used for some immoral purposes. Taking away the minor child itself is an offence and that is established from the evidence of the prosecution. There may not be any ill intention but taking the victim herself from Midnapore to Calcutta and that too without the knowledge of the guardian is an offence. The story of administering poison has not been established by the medical evidence. The father of the victim has two wives. He now recently resides with his second wife at Haldia and naturally for that reason he did not have knowledge initially. However, on perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find that this accused appellant had taken the victim to Calcutta who wanted to engage her as a domestic help in the house of others.;