BULBULI ADHIKARY MAHANTA @ MAMONI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband Gaur Mahanta and his wife Bulbuli Adhikary Mahanta @ Mamoni were jointly tried on a charge for committing offence punishable under Section 363/366A/34 IPC and against the accused Gaur Mahanta there was an additional charge under Section 376 IPC. In the said trial both of them were convicted of the said charges and while they were sentenced to suffer R.I. 5 years and 7 years respectively with fine and default clause for their conviction under Section 363/366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Gaur Mahanta was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay fine with default clause. While in C.R.A. No. 318 of 2008 the convict Gaur Mahanta challenged his conviction in C.R.A. No. 328 of 2008 the convict Bulbuli Adhikary Mahanta @ Mamoni challenged her conviction. Both the aforesaid appeals when were listed since none appeared on behalf of the appellant a Division Bench of this Court directed both of them to be produced in Court in person. Accordingly, they were produced in Court in person when they expressed their disability to engage any lawyer to defend them in the said appeal against the order of conviction and requested the Court for engaging a lawyer for conducting the appeal on their behalf at the cost of the State. This Court engaged Ms. Sreyashee Biswas to appear on behalf of the appellant in C.R.A. No. 318 of 2008 and Mrs. Debjani Sahoo Banerjee in C.R.A. No. 328 of 2008.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution at the time of the incident the victim girl was about 14 years and a student in class IX of Harirdhampur High School, Tufangange. The appellant Gaur Mahanta used to work in cable line and that is how he became acquainted of the victim and through him his wife Bulbuli Mahanta. It is the further case that both the husband and wife were involved in trafficking girls and it is true Bulbuli the victim girl was allured. On May 28, 2007 the accused Bulbuli took away the victim girl from the school while she was in class on the pretext that accused Gaur was seriously ill. Although initially the victim girl was not agreed to go with her but after prolonged insistence she left with her and reached their residence. There Gaur Mahanta proposed her to accompany him to Ludhiana and the victim left for Ludhiana with him via Siliguri and Delhi. Since she did not return home after school hours her father lodged a missing diary with the local police station. Sometime thereafter her father received a call from her when it was disclosed that she was at Siliguri and would be returning within 10/12 days and when it was discovered some phone calls coming from Ludhiana suspicion arose and the police with her father and two brothers of the accused Gaur have been to Ludhiana and rescued her. After her recovery she disclosed that during the period she was detained at Ludhiana the accused Gaur Mahanta regularly used to have sexual intercourse with her.

(3.) IN the trial prosecution examined total 10 witnesses to establish the charge against the appellant. Out of those witnesses PW/2 was the key witness. The PW/1 is her father, PW/3 Rahim Sekh is the rickshaw puller in whose rickshaw the victim was taken from the school, PW/4 Nikhil Sarkar the night guard of Harirdhampur High School was declared hostile during the trial, PW/5 Bhakti Mohanti accompanied the party to Ludhiana for recovery of the victim girl, PW/6 Dilip Kr. Roy is the doctor who examined after her recovery, PW/7 Avijit Das is the doctor who examined the accused Gaur Mahanta, PW/8 Kamal Kanti Roy was scribe of the FIR, PW/9 H.K. Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case and PW/10 Sri Sudip Bhattacharjee is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.