Anima Hazarika, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 27.2.98 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 4 (D.N. 1) of 1997, the accused-Appellant Shri Ikbal Hussain Saharia @ Iqbal Rahman has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" for short). By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the accused-Appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 / 376 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ('RI' for short) for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default further RI for 3 months under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC and RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a defaulting clause of RI for 3 months under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is ordered by the impugned judgment that both the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the Ejahar (FIR) dated 3.3.93 (Ext. 1) is that on 7.2.93 when the informant's minor daughter, aged about 14 years, (to be referred to hereinafter as 'victim girl'), went for marketing, the three accused persons, namely, (i) Md. Iqbal Rahman, (ii) Md. Nazir Ali and (iii) Md. Mazidur Rahman Saharia abducted her and kept her confined in their house. On receipt of the said Ejahar, Police registered Mangaldoi P.S. Case No. 37/93 under Sections 366 / 34 IPC and investigated into the matter. The victim girl was recovered by the police on 4.3.93 from wrongful confinement of the accused persons at village Samuapara and got her examined by the Doctor at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital ('GMCH' for short) on 4.3.93 itself and thereafter, she was forwarded to the Court for recording her statements under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the statements of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Judicial Magistrate. During investigation. Police arrested one of the accused viz. Ikbal Hussain Saharia @ Iqbal Rahman, i.e. the present Appellant on 4.3.93. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the two persons, namely, Ikbal Hussain Saharia (the present Appellant) and Nazir Ali, showing the later as absconder in the charge-sheet. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Magistrate committed the G.R. Case No. 136/93 arising out of Mangaldoi P.S. Case No. 37/93 to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi on 19.12.96. Subsequently the case was transferred to the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mangaldoi by the learned Sessions Judge, Mangaldoi for trial and disposal. The case against Nazir Ali was filed by the committing Magistrate on 2.8.96 after proof of the service of proclamation and attachment order.

3. The learned trial Court framed charge with two heads, i.e. under Sections 366 / 34 IPC and 376 /34 IPC against the accused-Appellant. The charges being read over and explained to the accused he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial prosecution examined as many as six witnesses including the Doctor and Investigating Officer while defence examined two witnesses and took the plea of total denial.

5. I have heard Mr. B.K. Ghosh, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Chakraborty, Advocate appearing for the accused-Appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. The learned senior Counsel for Appellant, besides his verbal submissions, has filed written argument.

6. It has been strenuously argued by the learned senior Counsel for the accused-Appellant that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and hence, the impugned conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the depositions of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 for which none of the said prosecution witnesses can be r