LAWS(GAU)-2024-10-6

ANIZUL HOQUE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On October 29, 2024
Anizul Hoque Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

(2.) This is an application filed under Ss. 401 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the impugned Judgment and Order dtd. 6/12/2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in C.A. Case No. 17/2010, whereby the Judgment and Order dtd. 22/9/2010, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 40/2009 under Ss. 366/376(1)/34 of the IPC, was affirmed. In that case, the present petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00; in default, simple imprisonment for another three months for the offence under Sec. 366 of the IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00; in default, another rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. 376 of the IPC. Both sentences run concurrently.

(3.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that one Mograb Ali lodged an FIR on 16/1/2007 against the petitioner, alleging that the daughter of the informant was kidnapped by him while she went outside of their house for her nature call. Accordingly, the FIR was registered as Lakhipur P.S. Case No. 10/2007 under Ss. 447/366/34 of the IPC. After the completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted the charge-sheet against the present petitioner under Ss. 366/376/34 of the IPC. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined total of 12 witnesses, while the defence examined 3 witnesses. After the conclusion of evidence from both parties, arguments were heard, and accordingly, Vide Judgment and Order dtd. 22/9/2010, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara, passed the order of conviction and sentenced the petitioner as stated above.