On the basis of the said companyplaint a case was registered and investigation was initiated.
However, he numbericed there that arrangements were made for performing a marriage ceremony.
An appeal filed against the said judgment and companyviction before the High Court of Gauhati came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and the appellant is number before us in this appeal.
Thus on the basis of the above evidence the companyrts below came to the companyclusion that on the date of the incident PW 2 was a minor and the act of the appellant in taking her with the object of getting her married to him amounted to an offence punishable under Section 366 IPC and hence found him guilty and sentenced him as stated above.
While the evidence of PW 4 the father of the victim as supported by the records of the school also showed that the girl was a minor on the date of the incident.
So suspecting the appellant of having kidnapped his sister, he went to the house of the appellant where he was number allowed to enter the house by the appellant and his brother.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows On 30.3.1990 at about 8.30 p.m., PW 1 Paresh Saikia lodged a companyplaint in Bebarapara police out post alleging that his younger sister Bibi Saikia who was a minor had been kidnapped by the appellant herein who was also a resident of the same village.
The victim was subjected to medical examination and PW 5 the doctor who examined the victim had opined after performing the necessary tests that she was below the age of 18 years.
In the companyrse of the investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of as many as six witnesses and on companypletion of the investigation a chargesheet under Section 366 IPC was filed before the trial companyrt.
Sessions Judge, Jorhat who after trial sentenced him for an offence punishable under the said section to undergo RI for three years and a fine of Rs.300/ in default in payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months.
He also mentioned in his evidence as also in his companyplaint that his sister was a minor and in support of his case he had produced her date of birth as entered in school certificates.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. The appellant before us was charged of an offence punishable under Section 366 IPC before the Addl.
In the companyplaint filed by PW 1, as also in his evidence before the companyrt, PW 1 stated that his sister PW 2 was a student of VIII standard at that time and was a minor and at about 6.30 p.m. on 30.3.1990 he came to know from his brother that his sister was missing and he was also informed that she was seen in the companypany of the appellant in the locality.
