LAWS(GAU)-2015-2-121

PRADIP BORO Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On February 15, 2015
Pradip Boro Appellant
V/S
The State Of Assam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2005 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 38/04 convicting the accused/appellant under Sec. 366(A), IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8(eight) years with fine of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees five thousand) and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years. The prosecution story in brief is that on 21.04.2003 at about 10 p.m., the accused/appellant kidnapped the informant's 13 years old daughter. Lodging the F.I.R. to that effect on 24.04.2003, the informant prayed for recovery of his daughter and appropriate action against the accused/appellant. On the basis of the F.I.R., Mayong P.S. Case No. 24/2003 was registered under Sec. 366(A), IPC. During investigation, the statement of the victim girl was recorded under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. In due course, charge sheet was submitted under Sec. 366(A), IPC and charge was also framed under the said section.

(2.) While the prosecution examined 6(six) witnesses, in the statement of the accused/appellant under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C., he denied the commission of the offence. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record, having convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned, he has preferred this appeal.

(3.) This appeal was admitted on 16.09.2005, but when there was no appearance of the learned engaged counsel of the accused/appellant, Ms. P.B. Bordoloi, learned counsel was appointed as amicus curiae vide order dated 22.01.2015. She submits that there is manifest error of law as well as facts in the impugned judgment of conviction. According to her, there is absolutely no evidence to convict the accused/appellant under Sec. 366(A), IPC. On the other hand, Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submits that when the victim girl herself stated in her deposition that the accused/appellant had kidnapped her, the impugned judgment of conviction is not liable to be interfered with.