Absence of external injuries and inconsistent testimony regarding coercion negate conviction for kidnapping under Section 365 IPC.

The informant alleged that on 16.10.2013, his 17-year-old son, Shivam Kumar (P.W. 6), was enticed and kidnapped by the appellant and others

The victim was recovered on 01.12.2013 after allegedly being held for 1.5 months and forced to work as a laborer

P.W. 1 (victim's brother) had previously filed a 'Sanha' (police report) stating the victim had forcefully taken his motorcycle and left

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 364 IPC but convicted him under Section 365 IPC, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of material contradictions and lack of evidence of forcible confinement

1. Whether the prosecution proved the ingredients of kidnapping or abduction with the intent to cause secret and wrongful confinement under Section 365 IPC beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the testimony of the victim (P.W. 6) was reliable given substantial contradictions between his statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and his deposition in court

The court primarily applied Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which requires proof of kidnapping or abduction with the specific intent to cause the person to be secretly and wrongfully confined

It also considered Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which allows a court to convict a person for a minor offense even if they were charged with a major offense, provided the facts support it

the court relied on the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt

The High Court found the prosecution's foundation, primarily the testimony of P.W. 6, to be fundamentally flawed due to "substantial contradictions" regarding the manner of movement and confinement

The victim admitted to traveling alone by bus to Ranchi and attending marriage parties, which negated the element of "wrongful confinement"

Medical evidence from P.W. 7 corroborated this by showing no signs of physical restraint or injury

the court noted that the defense's version—that the victim left voluntarily after a dispute involving a motorcycle—was probabilized by the 'Sanha' filed by P.W. 1

The court concluded that the Trial Court erred in applying Section 222 Cr.P.C. to convict the appellant under Section 365 IPC, as the essential ingredients of abduction and intent to confine were not established

The appellant was granted the benefit of doubt

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2016 and the order of sentence dated 17.03.2016

The appellant was acquitted of all charges and discharged from the liability of his bail bond. The appeal was allowed