ARUN ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on behalf of the appellant Arun Roy, from jail is directed against his conviction and sentence by the Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge (AddI), Purulia in his judgment and order dated 28-5-1990 in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 1990 (Sessions Case No. 86 of 1989), convicting the appellant on the charge under section 363, I.P.C. and sentencing him thereon to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and to suffer R.I. for one year more and also convicting him under section 376. I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year more thereon both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The aforesaid trial emanated from Purulia (Town) P.S. Case No.9 dated 19-11-1998 under sections 363/366A. I.P.C. recorded on the written complaint (Ext. 1) of one Haraku Kumar (P.W.1), father of Jay anti Kumar (P.W.6) and a Homeguard, at the said P.S. on the same day at 16.25 hrs alleging thereon that on November 6. 1988 (i.e. about twelve days back), his daughter, Jayanti Kumar aged about 14 years 6 months, hereafter referred to as the victim girl went to see an open air opera at Nadihia Barawase and since then she was untraced till that day and he came to know that Sri Arun Roy (appellant) had fled away taking his minor daughter from the place to satisfy his immoral purpose.

(3.) On 21-1-1989 i.e. about four months thereafter, the appellant and the victim girl surrendered themselves at the police station and they were arrested and forwarded to Court and on the prayer of the 1.0. medical examination of the appellant was done by Dr. Asit Kumar Das Dan (P.W.9) and the victim girl was done by Dr. Pradip Kumar Bagchi (P.W.7) to ascertain her ages and her statement (Ext. 3) was recorded under section 164. Cr. P.C. by the Ld. S.D.J.M. Purulia (P.W.8) on 23-1-1989 and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for offences punishable under sections 363, 366/376, I.P.C. and ultimately the appellant was placed on trial to face the charges under sections 363 and 376, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced as above.