Conviction under Section 366-A IPC requires specific intent or knowledge of likely illicit intercourse beyond mere kidnapping.

The informant’s minor daughter (16 years old) went missing on 05.10.2001 while heading to college

It was alleged that the main accused, Nashim Rai (a juvenile), along with the appellant Subodh Thakur and others, kidnapped her with the intent to force marriage or illicit intercourse

Evidence of P.W. 4 (victim) and P.W. 7 revealed that the appellant accompanied Nashim Rai and the victim on a bus to Bagodar, where the appellant was given Rs. 20 and returned home, while Nashim took the girl to Calcutta

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 366-A of the IPC, sentencing him to 5 and 7 years of R.I., respectively

The appellant challenged this on the grounds that he played no part in the intent to seduce the girl for illicit purposes

1. Whether the ingredients of Section 366-A IPC (procuration of minor girl) are made out against the appellant when he separated from the victim prior to any alleged inducement for illicit intercourse?

2. Whether the conviction under Section 363 IPC for kidnapping from lawful guardianship remains sustainable based on the oral testimony?

The court primarily applied Section 363 of the IPC, which punishes the kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship

It further analyzed Section 366-A of the IPC, which requires that the accused must induce a minor girl to move "with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person"

The Court observed that while the prosecution successfully proved "taking" the victim with the appellant's assistance under Section 363, the evidence for Section 366-A was lacking regarding the appellant's intent.

The Court noted that the appellant left the main accused and the victim at Bagodar and returned home

Crucially, the medical report (P.W. 5) showed no evidence of sexual assault, and the victim's testimony did not establish that the appellant intended or knew she would be forced into illicit intercourse

The court reasoned that since the appellant was not involved in any act of inducement for sexual purposes and separated from the girl early in the transit, the specific intent/knowledge required for Section 366-A was not established beyond a reasonable doubt

The Court upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC but, considering the passage of 25 years and the appellant’s one-year period already spent in custody, modified the sentence to the "period already undergone". The appellant was discharged from the liability of the remaining sentence.