NARAYAN BAIDYAKAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original accused to challenge the judgment dated 25.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur in Sessions Trial No.40 of 2012. By the impugned judgment the accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 365 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and under Sections 5(1) and 6(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. For the offence under Section 365 of IPC he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3(three) years. For offence under Section 366 of IPC he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5(five) years. For offence under Section 5(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3(three) years and for one under Section 6(1) of the said Act rigorous imprisonment of 7(seven) years. All sentences are to run concurrently. Separate fines are also imposed.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution version was that one Ruma Datta Chowdhury, a widow lady was residing with her parents. On 19.12.2009 the accused Narayan Baidyakar took said Ruma Datta Chowdhury by giving her promise of securing a job for her in Fisheries Department at Agartala. She did not return home and the family members, therefore, started looking for her. On 25.12.2009 her brother Satyabrata Choudhury filed a missing person's report. The family members during their search came to know that the victim girl was kept in a confinement in a brothel at Silchar. Upon a tip-off they went to the place along with police party and rescued the victim girl on 30.12.2009. An F.I.R. was lodged before Kamalpur Police Station to this effect on 27.05.2010. A charge was framed against the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 365 and 366 of IPC and Sections 5(1) and 6(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 on 12.07.2013. A separate charge also dated 12.07.2013 was framed for having committed offence under Section 420 of IPC on the premise that he had collected Rs.3,000 from the families of job aspirants of the said area.

(3.) Upon completion of the trial, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 420 of IPC but convicted him for the rest of the charges and handed down sentences as noted above. It is the said judgment of the learned Sessions Judge which the accused challenged in this appeal.