Conviction under Section 366A IPC affirmed; sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone.

On 9 April 2005, Lata Kumari, the minor daughter of informant Guru Charan Singh, allegedly left home and did not return. After an initial Sanha entry, the informant claimed that the appellant admitted before villagers at Village Pair that he had brought the girl and would return her within two days, but subsequently absconded. An FIR was registered under Section 366A IPC, and the appellant was charge-sheeted and tried in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2006

The prosecution examined eight witnesses and produced documentary evidence, while the defence led no evidence

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 366A IPC and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,500

In appeal, the appellant challenged the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence, particularly the alleged extra-judicial confession, and alternatively sought reduction of sentence on the grounds of prolonged pendency, age, and custody already undergone

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 366A IPC by taking or inducing the minor girl for an unlawful purpose

Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession, unsupported by testimony of the villagers before whom it was allegedly made, was sufficient to sustain the conviction

Whether the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment required modification considering the appellant’s age, period of custody, and the age of the case

The Court applied Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises inducing a minor girl to go from any place or do any act with the intention that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person

The conviction had to rest on legally admissible evidence establishing the appellant’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court considered the evidentiary value of an alleged extra-judicial confession and the effect of omissions and contradictions in prosecution testimony, including the Investigating Officer’s evidence regarding what witnesses had or had not stated during investigation

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

In sentencing, the Court exercised appellate discretion to consider the appellant’s advanced age, the substantial period already undergone, and the considerable delay in final adjudication

The Court reviewed the testimony of the informant’s family members and other witnesses.

P.Ws. 2 to 6 referred to the appellant’s alleged admission at Village Pair, but no villager before whom the confession was allegedly made was examined, and no document relating to the alleged village proceeding was produced

P.W. 4 admitted that his evidence was based on what his deceased father had told him, while P.W. 5 similarly acknowledged that her information came from her husband

The Investigating Officer further stated that material facts had not been disclosed by several witnesses during investigation and that no villager from Village Pair had been examined

Although the Court observed that, apart from the alleged extra-judicial confession, there was little evidence against the appellant, it nevertheless affirmed the trial court’s finding of guilt

On sentence, the Court considered that the offence was approximately two decades old, the appellant had already undergone more than two years of custody, and he was approximately 83 years old; it therefore concluded that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose

However, the sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment was modified and reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, while the fine and default stipulation were not separately discussed in the operative modification

As the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from the liability of the bail bond and the sureties were discharged

Any pending interlocutory application was disposed of, and the trial court record was directed to be returned