IMPORTANT POINT
The conviction under Section 376 was set aside due to lack of substantive evidence, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This criminal appeal was registered on receipt of a petition of appeal from the appellant, namely, Firdus Ali @ Rashidul Islam, who is serving out his sentence in the District Jail, Dhubri.

3. The appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilasipara in Sessions Case No.69/2019, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for the said offence. The appellant was also convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for four months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. As this appeal was registered as a jail appeal and the appellant did not engage any counsel on his behalf, by order dated 19.06.2024, this Court had appointed an Amicus Curie to pursue his cause in this appeal. However, later on, the appellant engaged his own counsel by filing Vakalatnama.

5. The facts relevant for consideration of the present appeal, in brief, are as follows:

i. On 11.06.2019, the mother of the victim girl lodged an FIR, inter-alia, alleging that her minor daughter (aged about 17 years) was kidnapped by the appellant Firdus Ali @ Rashidul Islam on her way to school on 10.06.2019. It has also been stated in the FIR that the family members of the victim girl searched for the victim girl, however, they could not find her. Later on, the appellant made a phone call to the informant stating that he had taken away her minor daughter (victim girl).

ii. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Bilasipara Police Station Case No.69/2019 was registered under Section 366A/342 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated.

iii. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant under Section 366A/342 of the Indian Penal Code.

iv. The appellant faced the trial remaining in custody.

v. After considering the materials available on record and after hearing both the sides, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 366/376/342 of the Indian Penal Code against the above-named appellant. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried.

vi. To bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution side examined seven witnesses including the victim girl. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. However, he did not reduce any evidence in his defence.

vii. Ultimately, by the judgement which has been impugned in this appeal the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner has already described hereinbefore in paragraph No.3 of this judgment.

6. Before considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the evidence which is available on record.

7. The PW-1, who is the mother of the victim girl as well as the informant of this case has deposed that she knows the appellant and the occurrence took place about four months prior to date of her deposing befo