- (1.) By Court. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2002, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 560/94, convicting the appellant under sections 363, 366A & 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years and also a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment, six months S.I. under section 363 IPC, 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, S.I. for one year under section 366A IPC and sentenced R.I for 10 years and also a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, S.I. for one year under section 376 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the mother of Sujata Mitra @ Ruby lodged an FIR on 10.4.1994 that her daughter is missing from 9.4.1994. She alleged that the appellant might have kidnapped her and concealed her because he was in love with her and used to visit her house in her absence. The informant had complained for this to the mother of the appellant as well as other family members about two months ago. The informant asked them that if they are ready, she may get her daughter married with the appellant, upon which she was told that they would restrain the appellant and asked the informant to take her daughter Sujata. According to the informant, the appellant used to send letters also to Sujata.
(3.) Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the doctor opined that the age of Sujata was 16 years. The appellant should be given benefit of such determination as the doctor's assessment can be plus minus one year. The prosecution has not brought on record any documentary evidence in proof of her age. He further submitted that at the time of judgement in the year February 2002, the age of the appellant was assessed as 24 years, which means that appellant was also of tender age and may be juvenile at the time of occurrence. He further submitted that ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out.;