KANU MIA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 3 (three) appeals are directed against the judgment dated 15-10-2001 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in session Trial No. 101 (WT/a)/1998, convicting and sentencing the appellants to suffer ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under Section 366 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment, the appellant, namely, suku Ranjan Sarkar was also convicted and sentenced to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment, to suffer three months simple imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and both the sentences are to run concurrently. All these appeals are taken up for disposal by this common judgment as same questions of law are involved in these appeals.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to these appeals are that the informant lodged a written report on 20-2-1989 with the O/c Amtali P. S. , to the effect that at about 0600 hours of the same day, the complainant's daughter, namely, Smti Anima Choudhary, aged about 12 years, while going to her school, was forcibly kidnapped by the accused Suku Ranjan sarkar and two others and taken her in an autorickshaw bearing No. TRT-872. On the basis of the said report, Amtali Police Station Case no. 10 (2)/89 under Section 366/351, ipc was initially registered but Sections 120-B and 376 of the Indian Penal Code were also subsequently added. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against 8 accused persons. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 366 and 376, ipc against accused-appellant Suku Ranjan sarkar alias Bidal Sarkar and under Section 366 read with Section 34, IPC against the remaining 7 accused persons. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Court convicted the appellants as stated above but acquitted the remaining accused persons.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned In-charge Public Prosecutor for the state-respondent.