JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anisul Alom for the appellant and Mrs. S. Jahan, Addl. P.P. for the State and Mr. B.N. Gogoi for the informant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 23/2015. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 366A/376(2) and 372, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years on each count and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 with default stipulation.

3. As per prosecution case, the present accused-appellant was residing in a rented house of one Najim Ali near the house of the informant. On the day of occurrence, the present appellant and his wife kidnapped the victim by inducement and thereafter in spite of all effort, he could not trace out the whereabouts of the victim. Ultimately on 18.2.2009 the victim somehow could manage to get herself freed from the clutch of the accused and came home. On coming home, the victim informed, that the accused-appellant took her to Delhi and sold out her to a brothel. When she refused to stay there, she was subjected to physical torture. The accused brought her to Dimapur and tried to sell her again. However, knowing the intention of the accused, she could manage to escape from Dimapur with the help of a girl and reached home. Having came to know about the occurrence, the father of the victim lodged the FIR (Ext.1). On the basis of the said FIR, police registered a case and commenced investigation. During investigation, the victim was examined by doctor, her statement was recorded under section 164, Cr.PC and eventually charge sheet was laid against the present appellant under section 366A/376(2) and 372, IPC.

4. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

5. In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charges under section 366A/376(2) and 372, IPC against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charges. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial court having found the charges proved, convicted the appellant and awarded sentence as indicated above.

6. Aggrieved by conviction and sentence, the accused-appellant, has preferred the instant appeal.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also the evidence and materials brought on record.

8. Mr. A. Alom, learned counsel representing the appellant, submits that the prosecution case was banking on the sole testimony of the victim, who was not at all reliable and, therefore, conviction on the basis of such unreliable testimony of the victim (PW-3) is not sustainable. Learned counsel further contends that age of the victim could not be proved by prosecution and entire prosecution evidence suggested that the victim was a consenting party and thereby ruled out the commission of any offence. In support of his submission, Mr. Alom placed reliance on the following decision:

1. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Munna, (2016) 1 SCC 696

2. Suraj Mai v. State of Delhi, (1979) 4 SCC 725

3. Diganta Majumdar v. State of Assam, (2009) 3 Gau LR 371; (2010) 1 Gau LT 731

9. Supporting the impugned judgment, learned counsel Mr. B.N. Gogoi, representing the informant, submits that there was no irregularity in the impugned judgment requiring interference by this court. Learned counsel further contended that after the occurrence, the victim has become mentally unsound because of the shock and trauma.

10. Out of the 9 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-6 and PW-7 pleaded ignorance about the occurrence. PW-2 was the doctor, who examined the victim and PW-8 and PW-9 were the investigating officers. Parents of the victim were examined as PW-1 and PW-5 respectively and another independent witness was examined as PW-4. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 appear to be reported witnesses as according to them, they were told about the