JUDGMENT :

Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.

1. This criminal appeal challenges the judgement passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore in S.C. 358 of 2009 (S.T. Case No. 14 (2) 2010) on 28th June, 2018 whereby learned Trial Court was pleased to record an order of conviction, having found the appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-with a default clause.

2. Briefly stated, on 29th April, 2008 Mangal Mandi, father of the victim girl set the criminal administration of justice into motion by informing Inspector-in-Charge Kharda Police Station in writing that his daughter (hereinafter referred to as victim girl), who was a student of Bhairav Ganguly College went missing on and from 12th February, 2008. She left her house to attend Saraswati Puja in her college but did not come back. Her mobile phone was switched off. He informed the local police station and G.D. entry No. 961 dated 13th February, 2008 was recorded. Subsequently, he came to know from the friends of his daughter that his daughter came across a lady named Puja at Titagarh station. They found the victim girl talking to Puja at Belgoria Station as well. On the day of Saraswati Puja, she entrusted her friend Lakhi Besra with her mobile phone and went with Puja. Lakhi Besra the friend of the victim girl received a phone call, made by a boy and Lakhi Besra came to know that the name of the said boy was Suraj. While giving back the mobile phone to the victim girl, Lakhi informed her about the phone call made by Suraj. His daughter took the phone back from Lakhi. The informant further stated that Lakhi told him that on 12th February, 2008 at about 2 p.m. the victim girl was found talking to Puja while leaving her college.

The informant subsequently came to know that with the help of Puja, Suraj and Bapan abducted the victim girl and engaged her in flesh trade.

The information, since disclosed offence, cognizable in nature, Kharda P.S. Case No. 121 dated 29th April, 2008 was registered under Section 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code. Police took up investigation which culminated into submission of charge-sheet against two accused persons. To bring home charges prosecution examined nine (9) witnesses.

3. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses, was pleased to pass the judgement impugned.

4. Mr. Ganguly, learned Senior Counsel, assailing the judgement submits that learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgement without taking into consideration the evidence or record properly. The judgement impugned is manifestation of absolute misreading of evidence.

5. Drawing my attention to the written information given by Mangal Mandi the defacto complainant, on 29th April, 2008, Mr. Ganguly, submits that the case was registered on 29th April, 2008 and the victim girl was produced before the Kharda police station by her father and one Biswajit Maity on 9th May, 2008.

6. It is found from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the victim girl, stated that she was brought back by her father and one of her neighbours from Delhi pursuant to a phone call she made to one Pradip Hansda of her neighbourhood from Delhi, by using the phone of one of her clients. The Investigating Officer was kept in dark about such development. The defacto complainant did not take help of police to bring back his daughter from brothel, as claimed. There is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this fact of recovery of victim girl. Even, no railway ticket was produced by the Investigating agency to substantiate the claim that the victim girl along with her father and Biswajit Maity undertook a journey from Delhi to Kharda. The victim girl claimed to have informed Pradip Hansda who according to P.W. 4 Biswajit Maity, informed the father of the victim as well as P.W. 4 about such call. That information goaded them to r