RATUL DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-01-2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Sessions Case No. 51 (DH)/2004 convicting the accused appellant under Section 366 IPC and sentencing him thereby to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default, further imprisonment for 6 months. I have heard Mr. H.G. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Saikia, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that:

(3.) ALTOGETHER 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C stated that the victim voluntarily came to his house. He also stated that he has married with the victim and they are residing together as husband and wife. The learned trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence on record held that the victim appears to be a consenting party and she came to the house of the accused on her own accord. But the victim was below the age of 18 years, she was not capable of giving consent and therefore the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 366 IPC.