2026:JHHC:28477

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1050 of 2017

----

Ajay Kumar Paswan @ Sajan Paswan @ Chhotu Paswan

@ Ajay Paswan son of Bhubaneswar Paswan, resident of

village Champanagar, Nawadih, P.O. and P.S.- Ichak District-

Hazaribag …. …. Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand …. ….Respondent

----

P R E S E N T

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

For the Appellant: Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate

For the State: Mrs.Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

----

C.A.V. on 16.01.2026 Pronounced on 21.09.2026

----

1. Heard Mr. Kumar Nishant, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant/convict and Mrs. Priya

Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the

State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the

judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2017 and order of

sentence dated 04.04.2017 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C, Bokaro in S.T. No. 09 of 2015

whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant has been

convicted under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, further directed to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

3. In the present case, the F.I.R. being Balidih P.S.

Case No.01/ 2014 dated 03.01.2014 and under Section

366 of IPC came into existence upon the written report of

the father of the victim who has stated therein that he had

given an application on 05.12.2013 regarding missing of his

daughter (victim) since 04.12.2013 at about 2:30 p.m. and

he made meticulous effort to search his daughter (victim)

from his side, with the help of Police Station and his second

2026:JHHC:28477

2

daughter Neetu Kumari got married with Ajay Kumar

Paswan (appellant/convict) on 12

th May, 2011. He further

stated that his son-in-law (appellant/convict) left his

second daughter at her maternal home on 10.12.2013 and

by then they came across the fact that his son-in-law i.e.

Ajay Paswan (appellant/convict) has taken away her his

daughter (victim) and they also came to know that on

04.12.2013, the accused came at about 2:30 P.M near his

house and while on way to tuition, the accused

(appellant/convict) had enticed away his daughter (victim)

and had taken on his motorcycle by saying that he would

drop her at tuition classes.

4. After due investigation, the charge sheet was

submitted against the appellant/convict under section 366

A of IPC on 16.11.201 4. Thereafter, upon taking

cognizance, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions

where it was registered as S.T. Case No. 09/2015. Charge

under Section 366 of IPC has been framed against the

appellant/convict in the present case on 06.02.2015 and

the same was read over and explained to the

appellant/convict in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as

many as 11 witnesses and also brought the documentary

evidences on record. However, no oral evidence has been

adduced by the defence. The statement of the

appellant/convict under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded

on 18.03.2017, wherein he denied all the allegations

levelled against him.

6. After appreciating the evidence on record, learned

Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 366 of

IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and

to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six

2026:JHHC:28477

3

months. Being aggrieved by the above-said judgment, the

appellant/convict has preferred the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict commenced

his argument by contending that the only role attributed to

the appellant/convict is that the victim had accompanied

with him willingly on his motorcycle and nothing has been

shown on behalf of the prosecution that the

appellant/convict enticed or allured the victim for any act.

He further submits that the victim allegedly lived with the

appellant/convict for seven days prior to her visit for Patna,

without raising any ruckus or alarm or any complaint to

anyone, and thus her conduct casts a grave doubt on her

version.

8. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is material

contradiction in the evidence of the victim as she has resiled

from her own testimony during her cross-examination and

on behalf of the prosecution, no evidence has been brought

on record to establish that she was forced into prostitution,

rather she had stayed comfortably for long period in the

said house at Patna, where she was alleged to be

enticed/taken away by the appellant/convict. It is further

pointed out that the radiological age as per the medical

report of the victim was above 18 years and thus, the

overall incident does not fall within the ambit of commission

of an offence punishable under Section 366 of

IPC especially, when the version of the victim itself is

doubtful. Upon the above score, it is prayed that the

appellant/convict deserves the benefit of doubt and

therefore, may be acquitted.

9. Per Contra, learned Spl. P.P on behalf of the state

submitted that in the present case all the ingredients of the

offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC have been

proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the

victim examined as P.W.-6 has stated about the role of the

2026:JHHC:28477

4

appellant/convict as she was enticed and taken away from

her hometown to Patna and forced into prostitution, which

fully corroborates with the testimony of the parents of the

victim. It is further submitted that the learned trial court

has considered the evidences of the victim and her parents

in terms of offence under section 366 of IPC and rightly

convicted the accused. Therefore, no interference is required

by this appellate court in the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

11. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as

many as 11 witnesses and brought on record Ext.1 -

Medical Report of the victim, Ext.2-signature of the

mother of the victim on the written report dated

03.01.2014, Ext.3-signature of mother of the victim on

the requisition of Police for Medical examination of the

victim, Ext.4- signature of the victim on the statement

under section 164 of Cr.P.C., Ext.5- written report, Ext.6-

statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

Ext.7- statement of the victim under section 164 of

Cr.P.C.

12. Victim has been examined in the present case as

P.W.6, who has deposed in her testimony that on

04.12.2013 at 2:30 P.M. while she was going for tuition

and she reached near Basuda factory, then her Jijaji

(brother-in-law) Sajan Kumar Paswan (appellant/convict)

came on his motorcycle and asked the victim to sit on his

motorcycle, so that she would be dropped at tuition, but

in the way he told her that she should meet her elder

sister who is at Sector-11C and thus, she was taken to

Sector-11C Quarter, where she did not find her sister,

but the appellant/convict bolted the door from inside and

extended threat that if the victim would shout then her

2026:JHHC:28477

5

sister would be liquidated. The appellant/convict is the

husband of victim‟s second eldest sister Neetu Kumari

and by extending threat, she was taken to Patna on

11.12.2013 and she was kept at Hanuman Nagar , Patna

where business of prostitution was carried out and the

accused told the victim to got engaged in the prostitution

and when she has refused, her hand was cut by the blade

and the accused also extended threat that if she would

make commotion or flee away, then her sister Neetu and

she would be liquidated. She has also stated in her

testimony that when she refused to get involved herself in

the prostitution, then she was asked by the accused to

call her mother and asked for Rs. 2,00,000/- and then,

the victim called her mother and stated about the

demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also divulged the address

where she was staying and then, her parents and brother

came and she was taken back to Bokaro.

13. She has further stated that her signature was taken

on the blank paper and also on one marriage certificate

by the accused at Patna. Therefore, returning from Patna,

police took her to the doctor and she was medically

examined and her statement was also recorded before the

Magistrate and she read and put her signature on it and

has identified the same which has been marked as Ext.4.

On 30.05.2015, the accused extended threat to withdraw

the case otherwise there would be bad consequences.

14. In her cross-examination, she has stated that on the

day of incident, she went to the place of her second elder

(Manjhli) sister, but she could not meet her. She also

stated that there were three houses where she was taken

to meet her sister on the day of the incident and one

quarter was of the accused and she showed her ignorance

regarding the occupation of other two houses. She

categorically stated that she has been taken to Patna at

2026:JHHC:28477

6

Hanuman Nagar and they stayed in the house of one

Dilip and in the said house his wife and children also

used to reside and she remained in the house of Dilip for

two and half months and her parents took her back from

that place. She has also stated that accused was not

residing at that place rather he used to visit for a day or

two. Further, it has been stated by the victim that when

she visited Patna, the accused remained with her for two

days at the house of Dilip and thereafter, he returned

back.

15. In the present case, apart from victim, her two

brothers, (P.W.2) and (P.W.4), her sister, who happens to

be wife of the accused (P.W.5), victim‟s mother (P.W.3),

victim‟s father (P.W.8) have been examined in the present

case. These witnesses have stated in their respective

testimony what they heard from the victim (P.W.-6)

regarding allurement and enticing away by the accused,

as such, they are hearsay witnesses. P.W.3 (mother) and

P.W.8 (father) of the victim have stated in their respective

testimonies that they went to Patna to bring their

daughter back when they received message/call from her

daughter (victim) regarding the place where she was

staying at that time.

16. P.W.3 mother of the victim has stated in her cross-

examination that on the day when her daughter (victim)

came out of her house, on the same day at about 8-9

P.M. in the night, written information was given to Police

regarding her missing daughter and thereafter a case was

instituted on 03

rd January, 2014. She has also stated

that when she and her husband (P.W.8) went to Patna

and met their daughter, then the accused was also with

her.

17. P.W.8 is the informant and father of the victim who

had also stated that on 04

th December, 2013, her

2026:JHHC:28477

7

daughter (victim) aged about 16 years was going for

tuition and when she had not returned in the evening

and she could not be found after search, by his wife, then

they came across to the fact that his daughter was

enticed away by the accused. He also stated that his

daughter Neetu Kumari (P.W.5) came to his place and

corroborated the fact that the accused i.e. her husband

(appellant/convict) had taken her daughter (victim)

somewhere.

18. P.W.2 is brother of the victim who has stated in

cross-examination that Dilip is not his relative rather he

was the relative of the accused and the victim had told

that she has made call from Dilip‟s mobile phone, while

he was present there. He further stated that her sister

(victim) had not disclosed any other things about Dilip

and Dilip is the resident of Patna and his mother (P.W.-3)

and father (P.W.-8) after returning from Patna had stated

that Dilip was also present there.

19. P.W.4 is also the brother of the victim and has stated

that his sister (victim) went missing when she left the

home for the tuition on 04

th December, 2013 at about

2:30 P.M. and on 21

st March, 2014, he came to know that

the victim had been enticed away by the accused who is

his Jijaji and husband of his sister Neetu and Neetu told

that the accused had taken away the victim. He has also

stated that his sister (victim) telephonically intimated that

she was at Hanuman Nagar, Patna and thereafter his

mother (P.W.-3) and father (P.W.-8) went there and then

his sister (victim) came back. During his cross-

examination he has also stated that in the night of 04

th

December, 2013, a written report was given regarding

missing of his sister.

20. P.W.5 is the wife of the appellant/convict and real

second elder sister (Manjhli sister) of the victim who has

2026:JHHC:28477

8

stated that when her sister (victim) had taken to the

quarter at Sector-11 on 04

th December, 2013, she was at

her in-law‟s house at Nawadih and her husband came

there during „Chhat Puja‟ and did Mar Pit with her and

went away. Further, she has stated that the whole

incident was revealed/narrated by her sister (victim). At

para 4 of her examination-in-chief, she has stated that

when she was at her matrimonial home (Sasural) then

her husband had arranged for her to speak to her sister

(victim) and she has divulged this fact to her parents and

at the time of the incident, age of her sister (victim) was

about 16 years. In cross -examination, she has

categorically stated that she was having no good relation

with her husband and her husband used to give beatings

and abused her but she did not make complaint against

the conduct of her husband anywhere, as she was

thinking that one day he would mend his ways.

21. P.W.9 is the I.O. of the present case who has stated

that he telephonically came across the fact that the victim

has been recovered and brought back to her place by the

parents of the victim. In cross-examination, he has stated

that he had not visited the house of the accused and also

had not gone to Patna.

22. P.W.10 is the hearsay witness. P.W.11 is the

Magistrate who had recorded the statement of victim

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same has been

marked as Ext.6 in the present case.

23. P.W.1 is the Doctor who has examined the victim and

prepared the report and she has found victim‟s hymen

absent and no external injury on the private part of the

victim and opined that the radiological age of the victim

as above 18 years. She has also opined that no sign of

recent sexual intercourse was found and proved the

medical report which has been marked as Ext.1.

2026:JHHC:28477

9

24. P.W.7 is an independent witness who had reiterated

the incident in consonance with the content of the F.I.R.

He has stated in his cross-examination, that the victim

managed shop of tea and fritters and he had an

interaction with her as he sat on her shop.

25. P.W.10 is also an independent witness who had

stated to the extent that the accused had taken away the

victim and after the elapse of some days, she was found.

26. Before analysing the evidence, this Court finds it

appropriate to discuss about the ingredient of Section

366 of IPC for which the accused has been charged. The

ingredients of Section 366 of IPC read as under –

366. Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to

compel her marriage, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts

any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or

knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry

any person against her will, or in order that she may be

forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be

likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be

liable to fine;

1[and whoever, by means of criminal

intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority

or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to

go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing

that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit

intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as

aforesaid].

27. On the bare reading of the above provision, it

transpires that in order to constitute the offence of

“abduction”, a person must be carried off illegally by force

or deception, that is, to compel a person by force or

deceitful means to induce to g o from one place to

another. The intention of the accused is the basis and the

gravamen of an offence under this section. The volition,

the intention and the conduct of the accused determine

the offence; they can only bear upon the intent with

which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman,

and the intent of the accused is the vital question for

determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of

the accused is established, the offence is complete,

2026:JHHC:28477

10

whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting h is

purpose, and whether or not the woman consented to the

marriage or the illicit intercourse.

28. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Kavita

Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra ,

reported in (2018) 6 SCC 664 has held that mere

abduction of women does not attract offence under

Section 366 of IPC rather the prosecution has to establish

that she was compelled, or knowing it to be likely that

she will be compelled to marry any person or in order

that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or

knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced

to illicit intercourse.

17. Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC,

it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced

the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place,

that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction

took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to

illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that

the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of

her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the

ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC

is concerned, mere finding that a woman wa s abducted is not

enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the

woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to

be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order

that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it

to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes

mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the court cannot hold the accused

guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC.

21. This Court has time and again held that mere abduction does

not bring an accused under the ambit of Section 366 IPC. It must be

proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that

she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be

compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or

seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will

be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

29. As far as, the victim is concerned, she has stated in

her statement before the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

has stated that her age as 16-17 years and her parents

has also stated her age as 15-16 years. It is evident that

the victim had gone to attend the tuition class on the day

of incident which indicates that she was student studying

but no educational certificate qua the age of the victim

has been brought on record on behalf of the prosecution

2026:JHHC:28477

11

and the reason best known to them. Record further

reveals that P.W.-1 doctor has stated in her testimony

that on the basis of radiological report, the age of the

victim is above 18 years at the time of incident. This

Court is of considered view that as the educational

certificate qua the age of the victim has not been brought

on record on behalf of the prosecution despite the fact

that the victim was studying somewhere. This Court is

inclined to accept the radiological age i.e. above 18 years

in the circumstances of the case and as opined by the

doctor on the basis of medical examination.

30. Coming to the fact of the case in hand, it transpires

from the evidence of the victim (P.W.-6) that she has

stated in her testimony that on 04.12.2013 at about 2:30

P.M. while she was going to attend the tuition , the

accused asked her to sit on his motorcycle and he would

drop her to the tuition class but the victim was taken at

Sector-11C on the pretext to meet her sister, who is wife

of the accused but when the victim had been taken to the

quarter at Sector-11C, she did not find her sister, then

the room was closed from inside and the threat had

extended by the accused that he would liquidate her

second elder sister (Manjhli sister) if she would make hue

and cry. Thereafter, the victim has stated that on

11.12.2013 she was taken to Patna, but from 04.12.2013

to 11..12.2013 the victim had not uttered a word in her

testimony about the period that how she was kept and

whether accused the appellant/convict was with her in

the quarter or not. She has stated in her testimony that

near the quarter of the accused where she was kept at

Sector-11C, there were quarter of two other persons. It is

also surprising that the victim was taken to Hanuman

Nagar at Patna and both of them i.e. the victim and

appellant/convict stayed for couple of days at Dilip‟s

2026:JHHC:28477

12

house where Dilip was residing with his wife and

children. The victim has even stated that the

appellant/convict had not resided for the entire period of

approximately two and half months rather the

appellant/convict had initially stayed for two days when

they had gone to Patna and thereafter, he left Patna. She

had made allegation regarding the fact that she was

forced by the appellant/convict to get herself engaged in

the prostitution which was running in the house of Dilip.

When, according to the victim herself, the

appellant/convict had not resided continuously with her,

this Court finds it difficult to comprehend how the

appellant/convict could have forced her to indulged in or

become involved in prostitution, thereby, creating a doubt

regarding the prosecution case.

31. From another perspective, it also appears improbable

that if the victim had been forced to engage in the

prostitution, she would have stayed for such a long

period without making any attempt to flee from the house

of Dilip. Rather later on, in her testimony the victim

stated that she had made call/message from Dilip‟s

mobile phone and she was subsequently taken back by

her parents from Dilip‟s house. These circumstances

suggest that the victim was residing at Dilip‟s house of

her own free will and accord and that there was no

pressure or coercion upon her.

32. It is also difficult to understand that when the F.I.R.

for the offence under Section 366A of IPC was already got

registered and the parents of the victim got information

regarding the place of stay of the victim, then why Police

officials were not involved in recovery of the victim rather

her parents had gone by their own to Patna and brought

her back and thereafter intimation was given to Police

personnel, which is very much evident from the testimony

2026:JHHC:28477

13

of I.O. (P.W.-9). P.W.-9 has also stated that he had not

inspected the place of residence of the appellant/convict

at Bokaro and he had also not visited Patna. Of course,

Doctor (P.W.-1) has found scar mark on the forearm of

the victim but it is difficult to conclude that the same had

been caused by the blade injury inflicted by the

appellant/convict. It is not the case of the victim that she

had been taken by allurement or enticed away for the

purpose of the marriage or for the purpose of illicit

intercourse (prostitution) rather she had stated that when

she had visited Patna along with the appellant/convict,

then she was forced by the appellant/convict to get

involve in the prostitution. Admittedly, the victim was real

younger Sali (sister-in-law) of the accused.

33. A close conspectus of the material available on

record renders the prosecution case doubtful and raises

serious questions regarding its credibility. Firstly, P.W.–

3, the mother of the victim and P.W.- 4, her brother, have

stated in their respective testimonies that the police were

informed on the evening of 04.12.2013 itself, when the

victim was found missing. However, the informant, i.e.,

the father of the victim has stated in the F.I.R. (Exhibit -

5) that the information regarding her missing was given

to the police only on 05.12.2013. More significantly,

although it is stated in the F.I.R. that on 10.12.2013 the

wife of the accused, P.W. – 5, was brought by the accused

to the house of the informant and disclosed that the

victim had been taken away by the accused, no

immediate information was thereafter given to the police.

The F.I.R. came to be lodged only on 03.01.2014. The

delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

remains unexplained.

Secondly, the victim has stated that she was taken to a

quarter at Sector-11C, Bokaro, where she was allegedly

2026:JHHC:28477

14

kept under threat of death of herself and her sister.

However, she has not attributed any specific sexual act or

other overt act to the accused during the p eriod from

04.12.2013 to 11.12.2013 when she was taken to Patna.

Her testimony further indicates that the accused did not

remain with her continuously rather he used to come only

for a day or two. She has specifically stated that the

accused remains with her for about two days at the house

of Dilip at Hanuman Nagar, Patna.

Thirdly, according to the victim, it was only at

Patna that the accused asked her to engage in prostitution

and, upon her refusal, directed her to demand Rs.

2,00,000/- from her mother. The victim thereafter

communicated with her mother over the telephone,

disclosed the said demand and also informed about her

whereabouts, then her parents consequently came to Patna

to take her back to Bokaro.

34. The subsequent conduct of the parents assumes

considerable significance. Both the mother and the father of

the victim have stated that, when they met the victim at

Patna, the accused was also present there. If the accused

had, in fact, committed the alleged wrongful act upon the

victim, his presence at the very place where the parents

found their daughter provided an immediate opportunity to

report the matter to the police and seek appropriate legal

action against him. Yet, no such immediate action appears

to have been taken. This unexplained conduct, when

considered alongside the material inconsistencies regarding

the timing of the police intimation and the substantial delay

in lodging the F.I.R., casts a serious doubt upon the

prosecution version. Thus, the cumulative effect of the

aforesaid circumstances, rather than lending assurance to

the prosecution case, creates a reasonable doubt as to the

2026:JHHC:28477

15

manner in which the occurrence is alleged to have taken

place.

35. Considering the legal proposition and discussion based

on the evidence in the preceding paragraph, this Court is of

considered view that there is material contradiction in the

testimony of the victim and her version casts doubt in the

mind of this Court about her abduction and forcing her to

involve herself in prostitution, as such, the prosecution has

failed to bring home any of the ingredients of Section 366 of

IPC against the appellant/convict.

36. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the

judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2017 and order of

sentence dated 04.04.2017 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C, Bokaro in S.T. No. 09 of 2015 are,

hereby, set aside.

37. The present criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.

1050 of 2017 is, hereby, allowed.

38. Since, the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged

from the liability of his bail bonds.

39. Let trial court record be sent back to the court

concerned forthwith.

40. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Pramod/Umesh-

Dated, the 21.09.2026

A.F.R.