ALLAUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 14.12.1992, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Criminal Appeal No. 4(B-2)/ 1992, upholding the judgment and order, dated 11.3.1992, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 74(B)/1990, convicting the accused/petitioner under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(2.) The case against the accused/petitioner, as unfolded in the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: On 23.9.1989 at about 9.00 p.m., when the complainant, Ali Akbar, was away from his house, the accused/petitioner, namely, Allauddin, with his three brothers, namely, Jallaluddin, Antu Mia and Rahmat Ali entered into the house of the complainant and forcibly took away complainant's daughter, Sakurjan Nessa, despite resistance offered by her mother, Hasna Khatun. The accused/ petitioner also took way with him some clothes and ornaments from the house of the complainant. When the complainant returned home, his wife reported the occurrence, whereupon the complainant searched for his daughter in the village, but, on failing to trace her whereabouts, lodged a complaint in the Court, on 25.9.1989, against all four accused aforementioned. After holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate, who was in seisin of the case, issued a search warrant and in execution thereof, the victim girl, namely, Sukurjan, was recovered by the police and, upon her production before the Magistrate, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The victim girl was, thereafter, medically examined. After appearance of the accused before the learned Magistrate, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) During the course of trial, charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused/petitioner, but the petitioner pleaded not guilty thereto. The remaining 3 accused persons were discharged and the trial proceeded against the present petitioner.