The main legal point established in the judgment is that in order to constitute an offence under section 366-A IPC, the accused must induce the girl to go with him with the intention of forcing or seducing her to illicit intercourse with another person, and the evidence must establish this beyond doubt.

JUDGMENT

Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Heard Mr. S Islam, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. MP Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No.162/2015 and Special Case No.13/2015. By the said judgment, learned Special Judge convicted the appellant under section 366-A IPC and section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation under section 366-A IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to imprisonment for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation under section 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 20.05.2015 at about 2.30 PM when the daughter of the informant was coming from School by riding bicycle the appellant forcibly put the victim into a vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01L 5136 and left the place. It was also alleged that on the way the victim was subjected to sexual harassment and physical assault by the accused/appellant. Immediately the police of Krishnai PS got the information and caught the appellant along with the victim. An FIR was lodged by the father of the victim on the basis of which, Krishnai Police Station Case No.115/2015 was registered under section 370(4) IPC read with section 8 of the POCSO Act. Another FIR was lodged for the same offence by the driver of the vehicle in which the victim was taken away, on the basis of which Krishnai PS Case No.116/2015 was registered under section 341/366-A IPC and on conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet in both the cases. Trial was also proceeded independently, however, at the later stage, both the cases were amalgamated by the learned trial Judge.

4. In course of trial, 10 (ten) witnesses were examined in order to being home the charges and on appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 366-A IPC read with section 8 of the POCSO Act and awarded sentence as indicated above.

5. Aggrieved the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Addl. PP and scrutinised the evidence brought on record.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae strenuously arguing for the acquittal of the accused/appellant submits, that there was no evidence of sexual assault or sexual harassment and the victim being in relationship with the appellant eloped with him on her own volition, and as such, no offence was committed by the appellant. Supporting the conviction and sentence, learned Addl. PP Mr. Goswami contends that the evidence brought on record proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the conviction and sentence of the appellant calls for no interference.

8. The victim was examined as Pw-6. She deposed that at about 2.30 PM while she was coming from School, the appellant Sohidul Ali obstructed her on the way, forcibly put her into a Maruti Car and proceeded towards Harimura. According to her, the vehicle was driven by the driver Mohidul Islam. She further stated that while proceeding in the vehicle, the appellant rebuked her by using slang language and also touched her body. The appellant took her to the house of a person of Rava community and left her there for about two hours. She told the inmates of the said house that the was not in love with the accused and accordingly, the women of the said house informed the parents of the victim about the occurrence. She further stated that after about two hours the accused came back and took her from the said house and while proceeding towards Krishnai, police caught them on the way and arrested the appellant.

9. Pw-3 deposed that while she was in her house, a car parked in front of their house. A boy and a girl alighted from the car and came to their house and she offered them to sit. Noticing the girl wee