D.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) SOLE appellant Sanjay Ram stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 -A of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count, by the learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 2001.
(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the evening of 4.3.2001, a Barat have arrived in the vicinity of the informant in village -Tildag, police station -Garhwa from village Bishunpura. House inmates of informant Nepuri Devi have gone to see Barati while her second daughter Sunita kumari aged about 16 years remained in the house. The informant returned to find her missing. She came to know that appellant Sanjay Ram, her neighbour was also missing from his house. She started searching her and unable to get any information regarding both of them, lodged a written report before Garhwa police station on 9.3.2001 ultimately. Police registered Garhwa police station Case No. 45 of 2001 under Sections 363 and 366 -A of the Indian Penal Code, started investigation and finally recovered the daughter of the informant from the company of appellant at Chennai. They were brought back. The appellant was charge -sheeted under Sections 363 and 366 -A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions where he was charged for the said offence on 28.1.2002. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed the girl has gone out of her freewill and they were married in a temple living as husband and wife. However, the learned trial Court after considering the evidence found and held that the girl was not major and recovered from his possession. Therefore, he is guilty for the offences and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count.
(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned Court below has not considered the fact that the girl was married with appellant Sanjay Ram and no offence could be committed because of love relationship existence between them. It is also submitted that in view of established fact that Sunita Kumari was having intimate relationship because of love with the appellant, he should have been acquitted of the charges. A large number of handwritten letters marked Ext. B series along with a number of photographs marked Ext. C series regarding the marriage have been pointed out. The marriage certificate issued by temple marked Ext. D series as well as the defence witnesses were cited. Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant, pointed out that in such facts established before the trial Court, the conviction of appellant be set aside.;