JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, dated 21.11.2003 and order of sentence, dated 24.11.2003, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IX, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No.188 of 2001, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code but by the same impugned judgment the appellant has been acquitted of the charge, under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence committed and punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant has also been awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently and the period already undergone in custody during trial shall be set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The prosecution case is based upon written report submitted by Bipin Bihari Singh (P.W.-2), before the Officer in-charge, Bistupur police station, alleging therein that he has a son, whose name is Rahul Kumar, aged about 9 years and a daughter, whose name is Diksha Kumari, aged about 6 years and both were studying in G. Town Girls Primary School in class-IV and class -III respectively. It is alleged, that today i.e. on 25.01.2001, while the informant was on his duty at Q-Road, Club House, at about 10:30 A.M. both his children left the house for school and at about 10:45 A.M. his son Rahul Kumar came running with one boy of the neighbour, Lalan Sinha and informed him, that his daughter has been lifted forcefully by a boy near K.M.P.M. High School and took her towards Government Colony, South Park. After hearing such information, the informant alongwith his friends V. Sunder Rao, Vinod Kumar Singh and Satyendra Kumar Singh went running towards the Government Colony in search of his daughter and as soon as they reached near the Government Colony, a lady standing on the road, informed them, that a boy has lifted a girl and has taken into the dilapidated quarter. On the basis of disclosure made by the lady, the informant alongwith his friends entered into dilapidated quarter and saw that his small girl child, Diksha Kumari was completely naked and the accused was kissing her mouth and with intention to commit rape, put the girl on the ground and was trying to commit rape upon her. The girl was protesting by weeping and after seeing the informant and his friends, the accused tried to flee away but the accused was apprehended by them. After seeing her father, the girl started crying loudly and the apprehended accused disclosed his name as Nazir Ahmad, son of Zahir Ahmad, aged about 30 years, resident of Gouri Shankar Road, in front of Amit Tailor, P.S-Jugsalai and in the process of apprehension the accused has also sustained some injuries. 4. On the basis of written report of the informant, Bipin Bihari Singh the police instituted Bistupur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2001, dated 25.01.2001, under Sections 363, 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no.27 of 2001, dated 20.02.2001, under Sections 363, 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, against the sole accused person. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 24.02.2001 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 05.05.2001. 7. The charge has been framed against the appellant under Sections 366A and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, on 14.03.2002, to which the accused person has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses and also adduced a number of documentary evidence as exhibits. 7. The charge has been framed against the appellant under Sections 366A and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, on 14.03.2002, to which the accused person has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether five witnesses and also adduced a number of documentary evidence as exhibits. P.W.-1 is the victim, Diksha Kumari, P.W.-2 is, father of the victim and informant of the case, Bipin Bihar Singh, P.W.-3 is Binod Kumar Singh, friend of the informant, who came alongwith the informant for rescuing the girl, P.W.-4 is Rahul Kumar Singh, who is minor son of the informant and brother of the victim, P.W.-5 is Dharmendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police and investigating officer of the case. Prosecution has also proved the written report of informant, which has been marked as Exhibit-1, endorsement of officer-in-charge on the written report has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, the arrest memo has been proved and marked as exhibit-3 and medical report has been proved and marked as exhibit-4. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 05.09.2003, wherein appellant has stated that false allegation has been levelled against him and he is innocent, but no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of appellant. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of material available on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon''ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashutosh Mishra. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law as there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that by the same impugned judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that by the same impugned judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the victim has been examined as P.W.-1 and her evidence is in complete consonance with the prosecution case, that a young boy has lifted her and taken inside a dilapidated quarter and disrobed her. She was completely naked and thereafter the boy started kissing on her mouth. The boy was also trying to commit rape upon her by putting on the ground and thereafter the said boy was apprehended on the spot and was handed over to the police. The evidence of P.W.-1, who is the victim of the case, amply proves the guilt of the appellant. Leaned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Bipin Bihari Singh, who has been examined as P.W.-2, is father of the victim and informant of the case, who got information, about lifting of his girl, from his son Rahul Kumar and thereafter he alongwith other persons came and subsequently, the girl was recovered from dilapidated quarter alongwith appellant in objectionable condition. The accused, who was apprehended, disclosed his name and address, subsequently, the accused was handed over to the police and the police has been prepared arrest memo mentioning that accused was apprehended by local people, which was proved by Bipin Bihari Singh, Shyam Sunder and Others and same has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. The informant has stated in the first information report that, during the process of apprehension of the accused/appellant, Nazir Ahmad, has also sustained some injuries that was also mentioned in the arrest memo, as (a) Bleeding injury from the lip (b) Pain over the whole body and as such, the evidence of P.W.-2 is also in consonance with the evidence of the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 has substantiated the statement of the P.W.-1 and his son Rahul Kumar, P.W.-4. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Binod Kumar Singh, who has been examined as P.W.-3, is friend of the informant, who was on duty with informant. This witness has stated that Rahul Kumar, son of Bipin Bihari Singh came and informed them about the occurrence, thereafter they went in search of the daughter of the informant. In the mid way a lady saw them and has given signal, that the girl has been taken inside the dilapidated quarter by accused. They entered into the dilapidated quarter and saw that the girl was completely naked and the accused was trying to sleep besides her. In the meantime, accused was apprehended and handed over to the police, they have found the mark of kiss on the mouth of the girl. This witness has categorically stated, that at that time only the victim and the accused person were present in the dilapidated quarter. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that this witness (P.W.-3) has been crossexamined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Rahul Kumar son of the informant and brother of the victim, a minor child, has been examined as P.W.-4. He was tested by the learned trial court and after being satisfied, this child witness was examined as P.W.-4. This witness has supported the prosecution case as made out in the first information report and his evidence is also in consonance with the evidence of the P.W.-1, his sister. This witness (P.W.-4) has stated during his cross-examination, that he does know the accused prior to the occurrence and nor he is the one from whom his father used to purchase flowers. This witness has completely corroborated the statement made by P.W.-1, the fardbeyan submitted by P.W.-2 and the statements of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 in their examination before the Court. The defence has cross-examined him but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Dharmendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police and investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.-5. The defence has cross-examined him but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Dharmendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police and investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.-5. This witness has stated that on 25.01.2001 when he was on duty at police station, Bipin Bihari Singh and his daughter alongwith three persons came there with accused Nazir Ahmad and handed over the accused to officer in-charge and also filed a written report before officer-in-charge, by Bipin Bihari Singh and same has been proved and marked as exhibit-1. The endorsement made by Ramchandra Rao, officer in-charge, on the written report, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, which was the basis of lodging the first information report bearing Bistupur P.S. Case No. 19 of 2001. First information report was in the handwriting of police constable, Dinesh, which bears the signature of officer-in-charge Ramchandra Rao and has been proved and marked as exhibit-2. The investigating officer has recorded the restatement of the informant at the police station and arrested the accused Nazir Ahmad and arrest memo has been prepared, which has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. This witness has categorically stated, that as the accused had sustained some injuries during the process of his apprehension and as such, he was sent for medical examination alongwith the medical requisition through a constable. The carbon copy of the medical requisition has been proved as exhibit-4. Investigating officer has seen the place of occurrence and has found that in consonance with the statement given by the informant. This witness has also recorded the statement of the victim girl, Diksha Kumari and after being satisfied, the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 376/511 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code. This witness has stated during cross-examination, that the lady, who has disclosed about the lifting and taking the girl in the dilapidated quarter has been examined by him, whose name was Lilly and she is a charge sheet witness of the case. The investigating officer has further stated, that Bipin Bihari Singh was posted at Town Club, which is situated at a distance of about 50 to 60 gaz from the place of occurrence. The investigating officer has further stated, that Bipin Bihari Singh was posted at Town Club, which is situated at a distance of about 50 to 60 gaz from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that this witness has supported the prosecution case and was cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve the prosecution case. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and from perusal of the record i.e. first information report, framing of charge, evidence of five prosecution witnesses, four exhibits, the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it appears that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely, Diksha Kumari P.W.-1, Bipin Bihari Singh P.W.-2 and Rahul Kumar P.W.-4 are in complete consonance with the first information report lodged by Bipin Bihari Singh, P.W.-2., who is the father of this minor girl. The accused/appellant Nazir Ahmad was apprehended at the place of occurrence alongwith minor daughter of the informant, in complete naked condition, as such the evidence of the informant cannot be doubted, as he has categorically mentioned in the first informant report that, while apprehending the accused, accused has sustained some injuries, which was examined by the Doctor, on the basis of police requisition and same has been marked as exhibit-4, issued by the investigating officer. Binod Kumar Singh (P.W.-3), is friend of the informant, who alongwith informant, after hearing about the occurrence, came and help the informant in rescuing the daughter of the informant and apprehending the accused and his evidence is also in consonance with the prosecution case. Dharmendra Kumar (P.W.-5), is the sub-inspector, who has investigated the case and issued arrest memo, which has been marked as exhibit-3. This witness after being satisfied, on the basis of material collected during investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused appellant. All these witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing have been elucidated by the defence to disbelieve the prosecution case. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances considering the ingredients under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, it is amply clear that victim being a minor girl comes within the definition of women as per Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances considering the ingredients under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, it is amply clear that victim being a minor girl comes within the definition of women as per Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- 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, [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.] Section 10 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- 10. "Man". "Woman".- The word "man" denotes a male human being of any age; the word "woman" denotes a female human being of any age. This Court has also found, that appellant has no right to take the victim in a dilapidated quarter, while she was going to school and kissing her after disrobing her and trying to commit rape upon her by sleeping besides her. The sign of kissing on the lip of minor girl has been found by P.W.-3, and the same has also witnessed by P.W.-2, Bipin Bihari Singh. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction of appellant under Sections 366 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code is also justified. 15. Considering the above submissions of the parties, this court is of the opinion, that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, is justified, as passed by the learned trial court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby upheld and affirmed. 16. 15. Considering the above submissions of the parties, this court is of the opinion, that the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, is justified, as passed by the learned trial court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby upheld and affirmed. 16. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds is hereby cancelled and surrender before the trial court to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court and affirmed by this Court within eight weeks from today, failing which the learned trial court is directed to take all coercive methods for procurement of his attendance to serve out the sentence. 17. In the result, the instant criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. 18. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.