Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 04.11.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 39(DM)/1999, convicting both of them under Sections 366 /34 IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for another 6 (six) months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, Sri Babul Bania and Sri Dilip Bania preferred these appeals citing several infirmities in the judgment aforementioned. While, Mr. Babul Bania had preferred this appeal from jail, Shri Dilip Bania was enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal suspending the judgment impugned as far as Sri Dilip Bania is concerned.

2. I have heard Mr. S.P. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appl. No. 8/2007 and Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 268/2006 and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeals are that during the time relevant, the prosecutrix was a student of H.S. 1st year class studying in Sipajhar Higher Secondary & Multipurpose School, Sipajhar. On 31.10.1998, at about 8.30 AM, she was proceeding to school in her bicycle. As she reached Puranbari, Sipajhar, she met the accused Babul Bania who stopped her and threw her bicycle to the side of the road and thereafter dragged her to an Ambassador car which was parked at a place not far away there-from.

4. After dragging her to the car, the accused Babul Bania took her to Baihata Chariali. The said car was driven by accused Dilip Bania. While being dragged to the car, she raised hue and cry but the accused persons threatened her with dire consequences if she continued to raise hullah. After taking her to Baihata Chariali, accused Babul Bania took her to Adabari, Guwahati and then to Nizarapar, Guwahati in a private buses.

5. On arriving at Nizarapar, the accused Babul Bania took her to his relatives at such place. While she was at the residence of the relatives of the accused persons at Nizarapar, her father along with police came to such place, discovered both of them there and thereafter they took them to Sipajhar Police Station. In the meantime, her father had lodged an FIR with the police. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case under Sections 366 /34 IPC.

6. O/C, Sipajhar Police Station himself took up the investigation and in the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, had the girl examined by doctor and also had her statement recorded by Magistrate. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet under Sections 366 /34 IPC against the accused persons and forwarded them to the Court to stand their trial.

7. Since the offence under Sections 366 /34 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Mangaldoi. On the receipt of the case on commitment, learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 366 /34 IPC against the accused persons and charge, so framed, on being read over and explained to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 witnesses including the victim, Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused Babul Bania pleaded that he took the victim girl from her aforesaid school and accompanied her from place to place as desired by her. On the other hand, Dilip Bania submitted that on the request of Babul Bania, he took the prosecutrix and the accused Babul Bania from Puranbari Gaon, Sipajhar to Changsari in his car and dropped them there to undertake further journey from such place.

9. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. The learned Trial Court on the conclusion of the tr