Surya Kant JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been heard through video conferencing. The Appellant-Anversinh impugns the judgment pronounced by the High Court of Gujarat dated 28.07.2009 by which his conviction Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") was overturned, but the charge of kidnapping Under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code was upheld and consequential sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years was maintained.
Facts
2. The complainant-Kiransinh Jalamsinh (PW-1) when came back from work on the night of 14.05.1998, he was informed by his wife that their eldest sixteen-year-old daughter (PW-3; hereinafter, "prosecutrix") had not returned home. Educated till Class VII, the prosecutrix worked as a maid; sweeping and mopping a few hours every noon and evening. The complainant-father made enquiries at her workplace where he learnt from a watchman that his daughter hadn't come for her second shift and that she was last seen coming out of the vacant Bungalow No. 4 of the Ramjani Society with the Appellant. It was learnt upon enquiry that the Appellant had left for his home in Surpur with the prosecutrix. The complainant rushed to the Appellant's home with his uncle and brother-in-law but could not trace the prosecutrix's whereabouts. After returning to Ahmedabad, a police complaint was registered on 16.05.1998. The police were able to locate both the Appellant and the prosecutrix to a farm near Modasa, from where they were brought back to Ahmedabad on 21.05.1998. After medical examination and seizure of her clothes, the prosecutrix was reunited with her family.
3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and adduced twelve documents in order to prove their case that the minor prosecutrix was forcibly taken by the Appellant with the intention of marriage and later subjected to sexual intercourse against her will. The prosecutrix's father (PW-1) corroborated the version of events noted above and testified that his daughter who was aged around 15 years had been taken from his custody without his consent. He additionally deposed that he was informed by the prosecutrix's friend, Rekha, that she had communicated a message from a boy to the prosecutrix asking her to come to 'Sardarnagar'. PW-2, an assistant teacher at the prosecutrix's primary school, brought the school records and testified that her date of birth at the time of admission was recorded as 08.02.1982. The prosecutrix (PW-3) identified the Appellant and deposed that she had been caught by him on her way to work and was forcibly taken in an auto-rickshaw to a nearby bus stand from where she was transported by bus to the Appellant's village. She further claimed to have repeatedly been raped and pressurised into performing marriage with the Appellant. The prosecutrix nevertheless admitted during cross-examination to being in love with the Appellant, having had conse........