MIRJIAUL HAQUE S/O MIRSAIDUN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAIRIYA, POLICE STATION HARISCHANDRAPUR, DISTRICT MALDA (W.B.) Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant stands convicted under Sections 366A, 372, 376, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with fine, R.I. for 10 years with fine, R.I. for life with fine, and R.I. for 14 years with fine respectively. There is default clause against fine imposed under the aforesaid charge(s). The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as projected at the trial emancipated from the written report (Ext.1) lodged on 27.05.1994 by the brother of the victim (PW-8), in brief, is that the victim was missing from the house since 21.05.1994. Sk. Firoz (PW-4) gave information to the informant that he had seen co-accused Rajendra Tanti taking away the victim on boat. In course of search one Bibi Guliya (not examined) informed him that one day before she had seen the appellant talking with the victim on Paharpur Bandh. This was reported to him as also to the local Mukhiya and Sarpanch. The informant suspected that victim had been kidnapped/enticed away by the appellant and co-accused Rajendra Tanti for immoral purposes. Upon retrieval of the victim her statement was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr. P.C. on 04.07.1994. PW-12 examined the victim on 30.05.1994 and submitted the injury report (Ext.2) wherein she assessed her between 16 to 17 years of age. The doctor, on examination of her private parts, found no mark of physical violence on her person. The hymen was found intact. There was no spermatozoa found. On the basis of the above, she opined that no definite opinion about the commission of rape on the victim can be ascertained. The police, upon conclusion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 198/1996 on the file of the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge V, Katihar where charges were framed and read over to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty.

(3.) To further the prosecution case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence. The defence also entered upon evidence and produced 02 DWs with a view to demonstrate the previous animosity. PWs-1 and 2 are mother and father of the victim. PW-4 Sk. Firoz has deposed about the victim being taken away on boat by co-accused. PW-5 Sk. Tullu is co-villager and deposed on the point of kidnapping of the victim and also recovery of victim (PW-7) from the house of her Phupha (PW-11). PW-6 is the Bhabhi of the victim whereas PWs- 7 and 8 are the victim and her brother (informant) respectively. PW-9 Shamima and PW-10 Shamim Akhtar co-villagers have been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-12 is the Doctor who examined the victim on 30.05.1994 and submitted the injury report (Ext.2). PW-13 is a formal witness who has proved the signature of the Station House Officer on the formal FIR (Ext.6). In consideration of the evidence of the prosecution adduced at the trial, the learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty under the aforesaid charges and sentenced in the manner noted above.