DEEPAK BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant and also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 111/2003, convicting the accused-Appellant under Section 313 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 8 years with direction to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim girl and in default, to suffer R.I. for Anr. 5 years for offence punishable under Section 313 IPC.

(3.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused-Appellant had love affair and had sexual relation with Maloti (real name withheld), due to which she got pregnant for 7 (seven) months. On 26.05.2002, the father of the victim along with some other persons came to the house of the accused-Appellant and had a discussion with his family members. During discussions, the family members of the accused-Appellant assured him to accept his daughter. After such assurance, the victim came to attend College on 27.05.2002. The accused-Appellant met her there and by assuring her of marriage, took to a Nursing Home at Morigaon where abortion was done against her will. After abortion the accused dropped Maloti at the house of one Rina Gogoi and disappeared. On receipt of FIR from the father of the victim girl, a case being Mayong P.S. Case No. 25 of 2002 under Sections 376/313/34 IPC was registered. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against Deepak Bora (present Appellant), Prabhat Bora, Swapan Bora and Paresh Bora. The case was committed by the learned SDJM, Morigaon to the Court of Sessions at Morigaon for trial. On perusal of the records, the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, discharged the accused Prabhat Bora, Swapan Bora and Paresh Bora as no material was found against them but proceeded against the accused-Appellant by framing charge against him under Sections 376/313 IPC. The charges being read over and explained, the accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the victim girl, two I.O.s and one M.O. but the defence examined none. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellant as indicated above.