IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the absence of corroborative evidence can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Arun Dev Choudhury, J.) :

1. Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned Amicus Curiae assisted by Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP, Assam.

2. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nagaon in Sessions Case No. 154(N)/2006 arising out of C.R. Case No. 1203/2002, convicting the appellants/accused to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years each and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default Simple Imprisonment for another 15 days for the offence under sections 366/149 of the IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each for offence under section 148 of the IPC, Simple Imprisonment for 1 year for offence under section 147 of the IPC and Simple Imprisonment for 1 months for offence under Sections 448/149 of IPC. The appellant Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 years each and a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default Simple Imprisonment for 15 days for committing offence under Sections 380/34 of IPC.

3. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

A. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that one complaint petition had been lodged by complainant Rahima Khatoon before the learned S.D.J.M. Hojai, Sankardev Nagar alleging that on 19.11.2002 at about 02:00 A.M. accused persons namely Rafiqul, Habibur Rahman, Rustam Ali, Abdul Matalib, Rahul Uddin, Idrish Ali and Siddiqur Rahman @ Abu Bakkar Siddique on being armed with dao and lathi forcibly entered into her house by breaking the door of the house and thereafter assaulting her, kidnapped her minor daughter aged 11 years and also looted Rs. 5,070/- by breaking the box where it was kept. It was further alleged that though she lodged one ejahar on 20.11.2002 at Nakhuti O.P., the police did not take any action. It was alleged that the accused Rafiqul raped the girl for one month by wrongfully confining her, under the advice of the other accused persons. It was alleged further that while she went to bring the girl back the accused persons threatened her with dire consequence and on 27.12.2002, the accused persons chased the girl from the house by assaulting her.

B. In pursuance of the complaint petition, the learned S.D.J.M, to whose court the complaint was transferred recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C. and also of the witnesses. After recording the statement of the complainant and the witnesses, the learned Court on being satisfied that there is material under sections 448/380/427/366-A/376/342 of IPC against the accused issued process against the accused persons namely Rafiqul Islam, Habibur Rahman, Rustam Ali,, Abdul Matalib, Rahul Uddin, Idrish Ali and Siddiqur Rahman @ Abu Bakkar Siddique. Case against accused Rafiqul Islam was filed on the strength of P/A. The learned Magistrate after appearance of the rest of the accused person and after furnishing them copy to them committed the case to the learned Court of Sessions.

C. Thereafter, the learned Court of Sessions framed charges under sections 147/148/448/366-A/380/506/149 of IPC and read over to the accused persons to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

D. To bring home the charge, the prosecution had examined as many as 7 witnesses including the victim and the informant. The defence did not adduce any evidence.

4. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

The learned counsel for the appellants argues the followings:

I. The deposition of PW1 and PW6 are having serious contradictions and inconsistencies in their deposition and therefore the learned trial court could not have convicted the appellants on the basis of such evidence.

II. The PW1 and PW6 are interested witnesses and the evidences of other witnesses are hearsay evidences and there are also many contradictions amongst the witnesses as regards the mode and manner of commission of the offence.

III. The