Conviction under Section 366 IPC upheld, but sentence reduced to time already undergone considering subsequent marriage and prolonged proceedings.

On 21 January 2012, the informant’s daughter, Prem Kumari, allegedly went out to answer the call of nature and was taken away on a motorcycle by the appellant, Subodh Sahni, along with other persons named in the FIR.

The FIR was registered under Sections 366 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. Although the police submitted a final report treating the case as a mistake of fact, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the appellant; the case was thereafter committed to the Sessions Court.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the victim, her father, a medical-board member, and the Investigating Officer.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 366-A IPC but convicted him under Section 366 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence under Section 366 IPC by taking away the victim and subjecting her to pressure.

Whether, despite upholding the conviction, the substantive sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone in view of the subsequent marriage, the age of the occurrence, prolonged proceedings, and custody already suffered by the appellant.

The Court applied Section 366 IPC, which penalises kidnapping or abducting a woman with the intention that she may be compelled to marry or may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

Section 366-A IPC was separately considered, but the Trial Court’s acquittal under that provision was not disturbed.

In sentencing, the Court exercised appellate discretion to modify the substantive punishment by considering the subsequent marriage, the fact that the occurrence was of 2012, the prolonged duration of the proceedings, and the period of incarceration already undergone.

The Court accepted the substantive testimony of the victim, Prem Kumari, and found it corroborated by P.W.3, holding that the evidence established that she was taken away and subjected to pressure, thereby sustaining the conviction under Section 366 IPC.

The appellant’s contentions concerning contradictions, the police final report, the discharge or lack of evidence against other accused persons, the alleged consensual relationship, and the absence of medical evidence of sexual assault did not persuade the Court to overturn the conviction.

However, while the conviction was maintained, the Court considered the mitigating circumstances relevant to sentence, including the subsequent marriage between the appellant and the victim, the lapse of more than a decade since the occurrence, the prolonged trial and appeal, and the custody already undergone.

The two-year rigorous-imprisonment sentence was modified to the period already undergone by the appellant in custody.

The appellant was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.