The principle of proving charges beyond all reasonable doubt is essential in criminal cases.

1. Heard Mr. A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S Jahan, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Judge, F.T.C., Rangia in Sessions Case No.47 (K-R) /2009. By the said judgment, learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused/appellant under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 4 (four) years with fine of Rs.1000/- and further imprisonment for 2 (two) month in default of payment of fine.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 10.04.2008, when the victim aged about 14 years was going to school at about 9.30 am in the morning the accused/appellant Fiznur Ali kidnapped her. The bicycle and the books of the victim were found lying on the road and the father of the victim (PW-1) lodged the FIR (Ex-1). On the basis of the said FIR, police registered a case and after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under Section 366 (A) /376 IPC.

4. In the course of trial, charge under Section 376 (1) /366 IPC were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses and on appreciation of the evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused/appellant of the charge under Section 376 IPC. However, learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of committing offence under Section 366 IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the accused/appellant preferred the instant appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Addl. PP and the evidence and materials brought on record. Although 8 (eight) witnesses were examined by the prosecution, learned trial Court essentially relying on the testimony of the victim (PW-7) as well as (PW-5) the doctor, recorded conviction of the accused/appellant as there was no other eye witnesses.

7. PW-7, the victim stated in her examination-in-chief that on 10.04.2008 while she was proceeding to tutorial class by riding bicycle, one Maruti van suddenly parked in front of her and out of fear she fell down. The accused/appellant and another unknown person came out of the vehicle and asked her to board the vehicle. When she refused, they forcibly put her into the vehicle. Though she tried to raise alarm, they gagged her mouth by napkin and as such, she could not raise alarm. She was taken to Guakuchi, where she was kept for 2 (two) days and during that two days she shared the same bed with the accused and after 2 (two) days she was taken to another village on a motor bike and when she was travelling with the accused on motor bike, some people along with her father stopped them on the road and she was recovered by her father. During cross-examination she admitted that the accused was known to her from childhood and they were in talking terms. She also stated that while she was taken in the car she raised hue and cry. She further admitted in cross, that there was nikah and in the nikahnama, her age was shown as 19 years. She also admitted her signature in the nikahnama which was proved as Exhibit-A. She stated, that although she raised hue and cry, no villagers came forward for her rescue. Although she stated in her evidence in Court that one unknown person was with the accused, in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the accused/appellant and Baharul asked her to board the vehicle. She stated in her evidence-in-chief in Court that she could not raise alarm as her mouth was gagged, whereas during cross-examination she stated that she raised hue and cry but no one came forward to her rescue. What is evident from her testimony is that she tried to suppress and conceal the factum of nikah and nikahnama, where she admittedly put her signature as bride. Evidently, she spent two nights in the house of a person at Guakuchi with the acc