AJOY DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 7(8)15 arising out of Sessions Case No.340/2014 convicting the appellant(s) for commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 365/366/370/376(g)/417/212 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for ten years each and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months each.

(2.) Prosecution case alleged against the appellants is to the effect that co- accused Birsingh Mandi had on 06.04.2014 met the victim, daughter of Chepulal Soren (PW 1) in a marriage ceremony in the house of Raghunath Soren. An acquaintance developed between them. As a result, the victim (PW 6) used to converse with Birsingh Mandi over mobile phone, even after he had left the village. Birsingh Mandi promised to marry the victim and told her that he would talk to her parents about the matter. On 01.08.2014 Birsingh Mandi asked the victim to meet him at Purulia. The victim met Birsingh at Purulia Railway Station along with her friend P.W. 7. Birsingh Mandi took the victim in a train to Tata and thereafter to Madhya Pradesh. At Madhya Pradesh he sold her to a person. As the victim went missing, her father (P.W. 1) lodged written complaint against Birsingh Mandi and others at Purulia Police Station Case No. 118 of 2014 dated 24.08.2014 under Sections 417/363/366A/372/120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation the investigating officer, (P.W. 22), visited Madhya Pradesh and interrogated Mahesh @ Pappu Sharma and Manu Sharma who stated that victim was sold to a person named Mastram in Burononera of Rajasthan. Accordingly, investigating officer proceeded to the village Burononera in Rajasthan along with the said accused persons and on their showing recovered the victim girl from the house of Mastram. Investigating agency seized mobile phones and SIM Cards from the residences of the accused persons. Call detail records were also collected in the course of investigation. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and Birsingh Mandi. Charges were framed under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code against Birsingh Mandi and Ajoy Das, under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against Birsingh Mandi, Ajoy Das and Haripada Kumar and under 370/376(2)(g)/417/212 against the Birsingh Mandi and all the appellants. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 28 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 14.03.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.

(3.) Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the appellants argued there is no legally admissible evidence connecting them with the alleged crime. P.W. 6, the victim, has neither named the appellants nor has she identified them as her abductors/traffickers in Court and in the course of investigation. In the absence of direct evidence, telephonic communications between the appellants are of no significance. Independent witnesses with regard to seizure of the mobile phones, SIM cards have not been examined. No investigation was done to establish that mobile phones or SIM cards belonged to the appellants. No question was put to the appellants during their examination under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the aforesaid telephonic conversations made between themselves during the period the victim had been abducted and subjected to prostitution. Hence, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.