Lack of conclusive evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's and her parents' statements raised doubts about the authenticity of the allegation, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Sessions Case No.171/2014, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted u/s.366/376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one month u/s.366 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for two months, u/s.376 IPC.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the mother of the victim lodged an FIR on 17.12.2012, before the O.C., Titabor P.S. to the effect that her minor daughter has been kidnapped by the accused person along with another, named in the FIR. It is submitted in the FIR that the girl has been kept forcefully in the house of the accused and only on her return, the FIR was filed.

4. On the basis of the FIR, the Titabor P.S. Case No.203/2012, u/s.366(A)/341/ 323/379/34 of the IPC was registered and the statement of the victim was recorded u/s.164 CrPC and her medical examination was also done and at the conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant u/s.366/376 IPC. The accused person stood the trial and denied the charge framed under the said sections of law and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of the case and the defence examined none. The plea of the defence is of total denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court found and hold the accused guilty and convicted him as aforesaid. Hence the appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of the victim girl as well as the entire case is doubtful, as the FIR was filed after a long delay of the occurrence and the conduct of the victim reveals that she was a consenting party and there is no conclusive proof that the victim was a minor one and the Medical Officer also found no mark of injury including the sexual assault upon her. Accordingly it has been contended that the learned trial Court has erroneously found and held the accused guilty whereas there is no legal evidence to implead the accused with the offence alleged.

7. Also heard the learned counsel for the State, who has submitted that the victim being the minor, she may not be aware of the consequences of her long stay in the house of the accused and there is also allegation of forceful confinement of the victim girl.

8. Due consideration is given to the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the evidence on record.

9. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, it is to be noted that save and except the victim herself, there is no other eye witness to the occurrence as regards the kidnapping and so far as the matter of sexual assault, the Medical Officer (PW.5) has stated in his evidence that there was no mark of injury on the person of the victim and there is no sign of sexual intercourse. According to the Medical Officer, the age of the victim girl is above 16 years and below 18 years.

10. The only independent witness i.e. PW.4 turns hostile and in her evidence (admitted portion), she has stated that while she was staying as a tenant near the house of the victim, she heard from the mother of the victim that the victim fled away with the accused but she has not seen the occurrence.

11. The parents of the victim girl (PW.1 and PW.2) in their evidence have stated that on the day of occurrence while they went to the market, leaving behind the victim girl (PW.3) in the evening hours, on their return they found that the victim was missing from the house and on search, they came to know after three days that the victim was in the house of the accused and accordingly they went to bring her back but the