SMTI. BHAN SAIKIA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MISS ANJALI BARUAH, MR. U K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Crl.A./129/2025 SMTI. BHAN SAIKIA W/O- MOON SAIKIA. R/O- VILL.- KUHIARBARI MAU TELAHI P.S- PANIGAON DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. PIN- 787052 2: SMT. MANIKA SAIKIA Page No.# 3/8 D/O- NANDA SAIKIA R/O- VILL.- KUHIARBARI MAU TELAHI P.S- PANIGAON DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. PIN- 787052 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 OTHERS REP BY PP ASSAM 2:SIDHARAM KALITA S/O- SABHARAM KALITA R/O- VIIL.- RANTIJAN MOUZA- TELAHI P.O.- PANIGAON P.S- PANIGAON DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN-787052 3:AKONI RAJKHOWA S/O- LATE BEGON RAJKHOWA R/O- VIIL.- RANTIJAN MOUZA- TELAHI P.O.- PANIGAON P.S- PANIGAON DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN-787052 4:BHABA BARUAH S/O- LATE BAPU BORAH R/O- VIIL.- RANTIJAN MOUZA- TELAHI P.O.- PANIGAON P.S- PANIGAON DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN-787052 ------------ Advocate for : MISS ANJALI BARUAH Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 OTHERS Page No.# 4/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

25.09.2025 ORDER Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application for suspension of sentence imposed vide Judgment and Order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur in Sessions case No. 111 (NL)/2019 by which the applicants were convicted and sentenced to undergo SI for five (5) years with fine and default stipulation under Section 366A/34 of the IPC. The appellants have also prayed for subsequent bail under Section 430 of the BNSS, 2023. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.09.2025, the informants lodged an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur stating inter alia that their minor daughters namely X, Y and Z aged about 15 years were engaged in prostitution by the appellants and that the said fact was known to the local people of the said village. It is also alleged in the FIR that the applicants had taken away the victim girls and while they were on their way, the villagers apprehended them but the accused i.e., the applicants managed to Page No.# 5/8 escape. Mr. Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the evidence of the victim girls who have deposed as PW-3, 4 and 5 revealed that while they were on their way to their school, the applicants took them to the house of Smt. Labanya Dutta who was examined as PW-7 and was asked to changed their uniforms in the said place of Smt. Labanya Dutta and that after they changed their clothes, the applicants took them in a vehicle towards Lakhimpur town and that while they were proceeding towards the same, the villagers apprehended them at a particular place and brought back to their village. He stated that all the three (3) victims had given similar statements before the Trial Court. He further referred to the statement given by PW-7 in whose house the victims were made to change their clothes and she stated that the victims had in fact changed their clothes in her house and that when she asked the victims as to where they were going, the victims replied that they were going to the house of their uncle at Sungapara. The learned counsel had also referred to the statement of PW-8 who stated that when he was informed that two (2) girls were not attending their school, he inquired and he found out that the girls have bunked their school and during the said inquiry, when PW-8 was returning home, he saw the girls waiting for vehicle at Sungapara. He as Page No.# 6/8 such, submits that the said statement of PW-8 has corroborated the statement of the victims who stated that they were going to the house of their uncle at Sungapara. As such, the learned counsel submits that the offence under Section 366A of IPC is not attracted in the instant case and that the applicants are no way involved in the said incident. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor however submits that there are evidence on record more specifically the deposition of PW- 3, 4 and 5 who had stated that the applicants had taken them from the school and were made to change their clothes and were also taken to some other places by way of a public vehicle. However, he submits that on the way, the villagers apprehended them otherwise the applicants would have taken the victims leading to offence under Section 366A of the IPC. By the timely intervention of the villagers the same could not take place. I have heard the counsels and have gone through the depositions as well as other materials on record. In the instant case, the statement of the victim assumes importance and if the same inspires confidence, the offence would be attracted. It is noticed in the evidence of PW-3 who is one of the victims that one day the applicants had taken her and other friends to Lakhimpur town and then took her and her friends to a particular hotel and got them introduced with two (2) boys who Page No.# 7/8 however is stated to have misbehaved with the victims and had abused them physically and that thereafter, they returned home. It is also in the evidence of the victims that on another day, the applicants took them to the house of Smt. Labanya Dutta i.e., PW-7, who made them change their clothes and took them to Lakhimpur town and that when they were proceeding towards the same, the villagers apprehended them and brought the victims to their house. Further more, it is in the evidence of PW-7 that when she asked the victims as to where they were going after they had changed their clothes, the victims revealed that they were going to their uncle’s house and that the victims were found waiting for vehicle at Sungapara by PW-8. Section 366A of the IPC reads as follows:- ”366A. Procuration of minor girl.—Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” A bare perusal of the said section makes it clear that if minor girl below eighteen years is taken from any place and is made to or forced into illicit sexual intercourse with another person the accused shall be punished with the Page No.# 8/8 prescribed punishment. In the instant case, the evidences of the victims did not reveal that the applicants had taken them to some other place in order to force them or to seduce them into sexual intercourse with other person. The evidence under Section 366A of the IPC is prima facie lacking in the instant case. In view of the same, the sentence imposed upon the applicants may be suspended and the applicants may be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) each with two (2) local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal. I.A. is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant