Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J.
Amzad Hussain Choudhury, S/O Late Manir Ali Choudhury - Appellant
Versus
State of Assam - Opposite Party
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2008
Decided On : 22-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. IH Laskar, Mr. PK Deka, Ms. I Krishnatraiya, Mr. P Borah, Mr. H Ahmed, Ms. LR Choudhury, Advocate
For the Opposite party : Mr. BJ Dutta, Addl. PP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of consistent and corroborative evidence to prove the offense of kidnapping under Section 366 of the IPC.
Headnote:
kidnapping - Criminal Law - IPC Section 366 - Summary: The court upheld the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 366 of the IPC for kidnapping a minor girl with the intention of marrying her, based on consistent and corroborative evidence. The court also enhanced the fine imposed on the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant kidnapped a 14-year-old girl with the intention of marrying her, and the victim was recovered from his possession after a search.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of kidnapping the minor girl and upheld the conviction under Section 366 of the IPC based on consistent and corroborative evidence.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused appellant kidnapped the minor girl with the intention of marrying her, and if the evidence was sufficient to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The consistent and corroborative evidence of the prosecution witnesses, along with the denial of the accusation by the accused, led the court to uphold the conviction under Section 366 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 366 of the IPC and enhancing the fine imposed on the accused.
1. Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel for the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. BJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 25.09.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Sessions Case No. 67/2006 convicting the accused appellant under Section 366 of the IPC and sentencing him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, Rigorous Imprisonment for another period of 15 (fifteen) days.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is that the victim Jasmin Begum Laskar, aged about 14 years, while coming out from her house to ease out, the accused appellant, Amzad Hussain Choudhury, with the help of two other boys kidnapped her. After vigorous search, the father of the victim came to know that the victim was concealed in the house of the accused appellant by the accused appellant. The occurrence took place on 03.05.2005.
4. On the basis of such facts, the FIR was lodged by the informant with the Lala Police Station. The Lala Police Station registered a case, being No. 40/2005 under Section 366(A) of the IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence, recovered the victim girl from the possession of the accused appellant, examined the victim by the Doctor and also got her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, and finally, submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused appellant under Section 366(A) of the IPC.
5. After exhausting all the legal formalities, a formal charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 366(A) IPC to which he pleaded innocence.
6. The prosecution examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses in this case. The defence examined none.
7. During the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution as well as in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the accused appellant is found to have denied the accusation levelled against him by the prosecution.
8. On the basis of facts of the case, including the evidence, this Court is to decide as to whether on 03.05.2005, the accused appellant kidnapped or abducted the victim, Jasmin Begum Laskar from her house with intention that she might be compelled to marry him or she will be seduced to illicit sexual intercourse.
9. For the decision of the above noted points, the evidence on record has been thoroughly scanned. It deserves to be mentioned here that the victim, in the instant case, could not be examined as a witness as she died before her evidence could be recorded.
10. PW1 and PW2 are the father and the mother of the victim Jasmin Begum Laskar respectively, and they were found to have laid evidence to the effect that while their daughter, i.e., the victim came out of her room, for easing out, to the bathroom, she did not come back. Thereafter, they started search for the victim, and ultimately, came to know that the victim was kidnapped by the accused appellant and was kept in his house as informed to them by Hillal Uddin, the President of Local Gaon Panchayat. According to PW1 and the PW2, the said Hillal Uddin also suggested them that the accused appellant would marry the victim Jasmin Begum Laskar fixing Mehr of Rs. 50,000/-, besides giving gold ornaments, to which the parents of the victim, i.e., the PW1 and the PW2, consented. The PW1 lodged the FIR, vide Ext. 1, and after investigation on the basis of the FIR, the victim was recovered.
11. PW3, who is the neighbour of the PW1 and PW2 is found to have stated in his evidence that after hearing that the daughter of the PW1 and the PW2 was missing, he visited their house and came to know from them that the victim was kidnapped by the accused appellant who was subsequently recovered.
12. PW4 is the Doctor, who examined the victim, and opined her age to be below 18 years of age. He has specifically opined that the victim was between 12 to 15 years of age at the time of occurrence. In any case, the victim was below 18 ye
