The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's culpability under Section 366 IPC due to lack of evidence substantiating coercion.

1. Heard Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State - respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No. S.T. 30 (NT / D) of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellants had been convicted and sentenced under Section - 366 of IPC to suffer RI for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution is rooted to the complaint dated 25.02.2011 lodged by one Mandarung Reang, aged about 20 years, stating inter alia that on 24.02.2011 at about 9-9.30 am Smt. Lalita Reang of Satnala, Chandrasingh Para made a phone call to her younger sister asking her to make a visit to her house and on that day itself, she had visited their house in the evening where she was pressurized by Lalita and her husband to go to Haryana against her will along with two persons of Haryana, who were not familiar to her. On 25.02.2011, at about 9-9.30 am, she was forced by the appellant along with Jagadish Chandra Nath and other two persons of Haryana to board in a vehicle (commander jeep). On the way, the vehicle was detained by the police and thereafter, she came to learn that Smt. Lalita Reang was trafficking her to Haryana in order to give her marriage with a person of Haryana at the instigation of Sri Bijan Nath and Jagadish Chandra Nath.

4. An FIR was accordingly registered. Being endorsed, the Investigating Officer started investigation, examined the available witnesses including the driver of the vehicle. After completion of investigation, I.O. submitted the charge - sheet under Section - 366 of the IPC and Section - 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 . Being committed, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellants, namely, Bijan Nath and Smt. Lalita Reang to which they claimed their innocence.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including the complainant and the appellants herein were examined under Section - 313 of Cr. Pc. After recording of evidence and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, learned Sessions Judge convicted both Bijan Nath and Lalita Reang under Section - 366 of the IPC, but, acquitted them from the charge under Section - 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 . Accordingly, both the accused persons were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 (ten) years under Section - 366 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for the same offence with default stipulation. Since allegations were not proved against the accused, namely, Jagadish Nath and Santosh Das, they were acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, it reveals from the order dated 21.11.2019 that the appellant No. 1, Bijan Nath expired on 31.03.2018 during his treatment at AGMC and GBP Hospital while he was undergoing the sentence.

7. Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The statement of the victim girl itself reveals that she boarded the vehicle on her own will and volition. She was boarded at Satnala where she could raise alarm but she did not do so.

8. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel relied upon the evidence of PW - 6, the driver of the vehicle. PW - 6 in his deposition has stated that in the year 2011 at about 7 O'clock in the morning he started from Dasda towards Kan