The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish the charges against the accused respondents.

 U.B. Saha, J.

The instant appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in S.T. 29 (ST/S) 2003 whereby and whereunder the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges leveled against them under Sections 376/366/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused respondents as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the State appellant.

2. The prosecution case in short is that at about 4 p.m.. on 18.9.2001, when the victim girl, daughter of Siraj Miah, the informant (P.W. 1) reached near the house of her private tutor Kamal Miah, she was forcibly kidnapped by the accused persons, namely, Sabuj Miah, Khokan Miah, Ajit Miah, Manik Miah and Saha Alam and taken to Bijoynagar where she was kept in a tribal house for that night. On the next day, she was taken to another tribal house and she was kept there for the night. On the following day, she was brought to an unknown place on foot. Then she was taken to the house of accused Anuar Hussain at Ghaniamara, Bishalgarh in a jeep and was kept there for the night during which the accused Sabuj Miah is said to have raped her twice against her will on the point of dagger. On the following day, the accused Sabuj Miah and Anuar Hussain along with his wife took the victim girl to the sister’s house of Anuar Hussain at Birchandra Manu. From there the victim girl was rescued/recovered by her maternal uncle, brother-in-law and the brother-in-law of her sister.

3. After two days of recovery of the victim girl, P.W. 1, the father of the victim girl lodged ejahar to the Officer In-charge of the Sonamura P.S. stating, inter alia, the facts of kidnapping of his daughter by the accused, On the basis of the said complaint, Sonamura police station case No. 60 of 2001 was registered under Sections 366/34 IPC.

4. On completion of the investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused respondents under Sections 376/366/34 IPC. The learned Magistrate SDJM Sonamura took cognizance of offences under Sections 366/376/109/212/34 IPC and the case was transferred to the court of the learned J.M. 1st class, Sonamura, who after complying the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura as the offence under Section 376 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

5. Upon hearing on both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused Sabuj Miah under Sections 366/376/34 IPC and under Sections 366/34 IPC against the accused Khokan Miah, Saha Alam, Manik Miah and Ajit Miah and under Section 109 IPC against the accused Anuar Hossain, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The further case of the defence is that the victim girl had a love affair with the accused Sabuj Miah with whom she went willingly to Ghaniamara where both of them got married according to the Mahammedan customs and rites. Thereafter, accused Sabuj Miah was assaulted mercilessly by the maternal uncle of the victim girl and others and she was taken away forcibly by them.

7. To bring home the charges of kidnapping and rape, the prosecution adduced 13 witnesses including the medical officer and the investigating officer (I.O.) and also exhibited some documents. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which they denied the allegations.

8. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them.

9. Before proceeding with the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be proper to reproduce the relevant part of the prosecution witnesses as according to the learned Addl. P.P. the learned trial Court failed to consider their evidences. More so, b