ROKIBUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Rokibuddin Ahmed has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat under Section 366 and under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on being satisfied that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the commission of offence under aforesaid provisions of law. Accordingly, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for commission of offence of rape and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Section 366 of IPC. The first information was lodged at the Golaghat Police Station on 24.12.73 by P.W. 1 Kanayalal Agarwalla to the effect that he along with his servant one Kanayalal Gour while accompanying Smt. Romia Tirki, a Christian maid -servant of their house to the church to put here there at about 9.30 P.M. on the eve of Christmas, the Appellant Rokibuddin Ahmed along with four others assaulted the informant Kanayalal Agarwalla and dragged Smt. Romia with bad intention by the side of Railway line near the Rly. level crossing. This happened as soon as they crossed the Rly. level crossing at Kumarpatty and when they were leading to the church on foot. The complainant requested the police authority in the F.I.R. to rescue the girl as soon as possible and to take steps to punish the accused persons. On lodgment of the F.I.R. with the Officer -in -charge of Golaghat Police Station, police took up investigation. The investigation that followed, resulted in a charge -sheet, a trial and eventually in a conviction of the Appellant based subsequently on the testimony of witnesses. The Appellant has challenged the convictions and sentences in this, appeal.

(2.) THE First Information Report, however, narrated the story how the girl was forcibly taken away by the appellate and four others. It would be now necessary to narrate the prosecution case as found by the learned trial court. The prosecution story as revealed after investigation may now be broadly stated.

(3.) MR . P.C. Kataki, learned Counsel for the Appellant has raised the following contentions: