PRADIP BORO Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

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 u/s. 366(A) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 08(eight) years with fine of Rs. 5000/ - (rupees five thousand) and in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 02(two) years.

(2.) 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 FIR 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 FIR, Mayong P.S. Case No. 24/2003 was registered u/s. 366(A) IPC. During investigation, the statement of the victim girl was recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. In due course, charge sheet was submitted u/s. 366(A) IPC and charge was also framed under the said section.

(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 Curie 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 u/s. 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.