High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 98/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 passed b y the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No.54/2009 convicting th e accused appellant under Sections 366/419/376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (’RI’ for short) for one year and pay a fine of Rs.100/, in default, RI for ten days for the offence under Section 419 IPC, RI for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo RI for one mon th under Section 366 IPC and RI for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,0 00/- in default, to suffer RI for one month under Section 376 IPC. Further direc ting that the sentences will run concurrently. Heard Mr. PC Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also hear 2. d Ms. B Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State r espondent. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Aranya Hira lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (’CJM’ for short), Morigaon on 25. 3.2009 alleging inter alia that on 15.2.2009 at 11-00 AM, the accused person nam ed therein (Md. Nekib Ahmed) along with few unknown persons kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant from the gateway of the complainant’s house. At that time, the age of the girl was 16 years. Despite vigorous search, she could not be traced out. It has further been alleged that the character of the accused is very bad and involved in many immoral activities and at present the accused has kept his daughter in an unknown place and she has been engaged in immoral acts. Regarding the said incident on 18.2.2009 itself, the complainant lodged a writte n ejahar with the Nellie Police Outpost. However, till that date police has not taken any steps to recover the daughter of the complainant. Therefore, he has lo dged the complaint before the learned CJM praying for taking necessary action. 4. After receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the learned court sent it to t he Jagiroad police station for registering a case, investigate and submit report to the court. Thereafter, the O/C of Jagiroad police station registered the sam e being Jagiroad PS Case No.60/2009 under Section 366(A) IPC. After completion o f investigation, the I/O submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant un der Sections 342/366 IPC before the learned CJM, Morigaon. During the trial, cha rge under Section 419 IPC and Section 376 IPC were added. The learned Magistrate forwarded the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon for having materials of the Sessions triable case. The charges so framed being read over an d explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses including the inf ormant, I/O and the doctor in support of the prosecution case. Defence case is o f complete denial. The defence also examined two witnesses including the accused himself in his defence. 6. Learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon after perusal of the evidence on record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused app ellant as indicated hereinabove. Hence, the instant appeal challenging the legal ity of the same.
Legal Reasoning
7. Learned trial Court, found the evidence reliable and trustworthy and the refore, considering the entire evidence on record, held the accused guilty of th e charges framed against him. In view of the same, let us scan the evidence addu ced by the prosecution as well as the defence to see as to whether prosecution h ad been able to prove the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable d oubt. 8. PW 1 is the informant. Victim girl is his daughter. PW 1 has stated tha t on 15.2.2009 at about 11-00 AM, the accused appellant kidnapped his daughter. She studied upto Class VIII and thereafter, she left her study and was at home f or last three years. He has further stated that he lodged the FIR at Nellie Outp ost on 18.2.2009 but as the police did not take any action for recovery of his d aughter, he filed the complaint before the Court. It has been stated that the vi ctim girl was left by the accused at Sivasagar and thereafter, she rang up to he r home on mobile phone and informed that the accused had left her there. Thereaf ter, he went to Sivasagar and took his daughter with him. Police recorded his st atement. In the cross-examination, PW 1 has denied the suggestion put to him that the accused Nekib Ahmed used to visit their home and that his daughter had love affairs with the accused and she being a major went with the accused out of her own will. On re-cross-examination, PW 1 has further stated that he had lodged the ejahar at Nellie outpost about the missing of his daughter on 18.2.2009 and acco rdingly, police came to his house to investigate into the matter. On the date of occurrence, he came to know from the local people that accused was working as l abourer in Mytas company. Some of the villagers also worked in that company. He has denied the suggestions put to him that he knew the accused from before the d ate of incident and that accused used to visit their house of and on. He has fur ther denied that the accused gave his salary to his daughter since before the da te of incident and that once the villagers including himself assaulted the accus ed in his house. PW 1 further denied that Mamani Begum (DW 2), wife of the accus ed asked him not to allow the accused to go to his house. He has also denied tha t he knew before the incident that the accused Nekib Ahmed is Muslim by religion and that due to excommunicating the family of PW 1 by the villagers, he filed t his false case after more than 1‰ months stating that they did not know that the accused is a Muslim. 9. PW 2 is a neighbour of the informant. He has stated that he knows the ac cused as well as the victim. The accused used to work in the construction of fou r lane highway. But he did not know if the accused had any relation with the vic tim. After the accused had taken away the victim, he heard about the incident fr om others. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know whether th e victim had any love affairs with the accused and whether she went along with t he accused out of her own will. 10. PW 3 is the uncle of the victim. He has stated that his brother-in-law, i.e. father of the victim informed him that the victim had gone with somebody bu t he could not say with whom she had eloped. PW 3 also searched for her. After v igorous search he came to know that she was at Sivasagar and thereafter, they ma naged to bring her back and on the uruka of Magh Bihu, the accused also came to the house of the victim and at that time he was caught and handed over to police . In the cross-examination, he has stated that he can not say if the victi m went with the accused out of her own will. PW 3 has further stated that about 1 week after the missing of the victim girl her father went to Sivasagar and bro ught the victim girl to his house. The family members of the victim girl were ex communicated by the villagers due to the reason that his daughter went with a Mu slim boy. On the day of uruka (magh bihu) before the incident accused came to th e house of the victim. PW 4 is the mother of the victim. She has stated that on the day of occu 11. rrence she was in the kitchen. At about 11 AM, the victim was found missing from home. They searched for her but could not find. The wife of the accused Nekib A hmed informed them that her husband had taken her daughter. Subsequently, her da ughter was recovered after about 2 months 15 days. Now she is with them. However , she could not say about the age of the victim. In cross-examination, she has categorically stated that had the victim g irl raised hue and cry, the accused could not have succeeded in taking her by fo rce as there were other neighbours around their home. 12. PW 5 is the victim girl. She has stated that she studied up to Class VII I. The accused was working as labourer on the National Highway where constructio n work of four lane and its widening was going on in front of their house. The a ccused became familiar to her and he introduced himself as Vicky Deka. As her fa ther goes out for cultivation and her brother lived outside, she does the househ old works and also goes even to market as and when required. One occasion, the a ccused came to their home and asked for water. It was about 11 AM on the relevan t day when she went to the shop. He called her saying that he had something to d iscuss with her. Then he took her in an Indica vehicle to Pachim Nagaon. He took her to his room and kept her inside the room, locked it from outside up to 3 AM . There were other houses near to that house where he lived alone. She had seen other people around. But she did not tell anybody that the accused had taken her against her will. The Highway was about one furlong away from the house where h e kept her and there were other shops and houses on the road from Highway to his rented house. However, she did not report to anybody that the accused had taken her by force as he threatened her that if she tells anybody he would kill her. From Pachim Nagaon he took her by bus to Nagaon. From Nagaon to Sivasagar and th ereafter, he kept her in Sivasagar for three months and in Sivasagar Dolmandir, he married her by putting vermillion on her forehead. He identified himself to b e a Hindu. After about one month of living with him, she could know that he is n ot a Hindu but a Muslim boy. He had cohabited with her and maintained sexual rel ation with her. She has further stated that had it been known to her that he is not a Hindu but a Muslim, She would not have gone with him and/or consented to s exual relationship with him. He had cohabited with her and had maintained sexual relation with her making her to believe that he is a Hindu and he married her i n the temple identifying himself to be a Hindu. During cross-examination, she has stated that she has three brothers. Many perso ns from their village work in Mytas Company in widening of the Highway. For last two years the Company has been continuing construction work of the Highway. In the portion towards their house, the construction work was going on. Other part of the road was free for movement of the vehicles. She had acquaintance with the accused for about last one year from the incident. The accused resided at Kahik uchi which falls in Kamrup district. He was staying in a rented house. She saw h is rented house. She knows Arman Ali of Kahikuchi who also worked in Mytas Compa ny along with the accused. PW 5 had denied the suggestion put to her that wife o f the accused, Mamoni Begum went to their house and told them that she was the w ife of Nekib and so asked her to keep away from him. PW 5 has further stated tha t she did not tell any body in the bus, though it was crowded, that the accused had taken her forcibly against her will. They changed the bus at Nagaon at about 8 PM and from Nagaon they went to Sivasagar by night super bus. Neither at Hayb orgaon bus syndicate nor in the super bus, she informed any one that the accused had taken her by force or against her will. After about one month of stay at Si vasagar, she informed her parents and the accused also talked with her mother on phone. Other suggestions put to her have been denied. 13. PW 6 is the doctor who had examined the victim girl. As per the evidence of the Doctor on the basis of the X-ray report, the age of the victim girl was found above 19 years. PW 6 opined as follows;- (cid:28)(17) Opinion :(1) No sign of forceful sexual intercourse found. (2) No spermatozoa seen (found) in vaginal smear. (3) She is not injured in her private parts or elsewhere no sign found. (4) Age above 19 years. (cid:29) 14. PW 7 is the Investigating Officer (’I/O’ for short) who has stated that on 27.3.2009 he was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police at Nellie Outpost under J agiroad Police Station. On that day, he received Ext 1, i.e. the FIR from the O/ C of Jagiroad Police Station. The FIR was sent from the court of CJM, Morigaon t o the O/C, Jagiroad Police Station. On receipt of the FIR, the O/C of Jagiroad P olice Station registered the case being Jagiroad PS Case No.60/2009 and endorsed it to him for investigation of the case. Accordingly, he took up the investigat ion, visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesse s. The victim girl was recovered by her father from Sivasagar and produced befor e him at Nellie Police Outpost and accordingly, he sent her to Morigaon Civil Ho spital for examination. He also sent her to the court of CJM, Morigaon for recor ding her statement. Accordingly, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr PC. During investigation, he collected the medical report of the victim girl and after completion of the investigation found sufficient evidence against the acc used appellant and therefore, submitted charge sheet under Sections 342/366 A IP C. Ext-4 is the charge sheet and Ext 4(1) is his signature. In the cross-examination, PW 7 has stated that the place of occurrence i s in front of the house of the informant. The house of the informant is situated at Santipur, i.e. the place of occurrence which is situated at about 4-5 km fro m Nellie Police Outpost. As per the FIR, the incident took place on 15.2.2009 an d the complaint was lodged before the court on 25.3.2009. According to the opini on of the doctor, the victim girl was aged about 19 years at the time of the inc ident. 15. The accused has adduced evidence as DW 1. He has stated that he was serv ing as labourer in Mytas company for the work of widening National Highway 37. H e got introduced with the informant. He also got introduced with the victim girl . He used to visit her residence and she also used to visit his residence. He es tablished relationship with her and had love affairs with the victim girl. The v illagers attempted to assault him and about the same his wife Mamani also came t o know. She thereafter visited the house of the victim girl and asked her not to proceed further on that line. The family of the victim girl knew that his relig ion is Islam. The victim girl eloped with him to Sivasagar. The family members a lso knew about the same. Then he came home at the time of Bohag Bihu. He visited his father-in-law’s house when the villagers handed him over to police. The vic tim girl deposed against him before the villagers to save their skin. He did not kidnap her concealing the fact that he is a Muslim boy. The victim girl picked up bus at the road in front of her house. In the cross-examination, suggestions put to him that he did not get int roduced with the victim girl and there was no love affairs with her have been de nied. He has further denied the fact that he kidnapped the victim girl. 16. DW 2, Mamani Begum is the wife of the accused. She has stated that the a ccused is her husband. He married her in the year 1999 and their son is aged abo ut 10 years. In the month of February 2009 the incident occurred. Her husband se rved at Mytas company. He resided at Kahikuchi. He did not pay money to her. She heard about his affairs with a Hindu girl. After coming to know about the same she visited the house of the victim girl. She met the father of the victim girl and informed him as well as the family members and that the victim girl got furi ous with her and also quarreled with her. She then left her house. The villagers were unhappy. She has also asked the villagers not to allow her husband stay th ere. The victim girl ran away with her husband and the villagers outcasted their family. They filed case against her husband Nekib Ahmed. The girl eloped with h er husband knowing it fully. In the cross-examination, suggestions put to her that she had made false statement and that the accused kidnapped the victim girl have been denied by he r. She has further denied that she saw the victim girl at the residence of the a ccused. 17. After completion of the prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court recor ded the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC wherein he denied the ch arge leveled against him. He has further stated that the victim girl knew his id entity (Hindu or Muslim) very well. Even then she lived with him. His wife also asked her not to elope with him. The victim girl also knew that he had a wife. 18. Scanning of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses would reveal that; i) the victim girl knew the accused appellant since one year before the inc ident (as per her own version) and due to his frequent visit to her house she ha d developed love affair and thereafter on the day of incident, she voluntarily e loped with the accused. First they went to Pachim Nagaon. Then he took her by bu s to Nagaon. From Nagaon to Sivasagar by night super bus and they stayed at Siva sagar for about three months as husband and wife. While traveling in the buses, she did not tell anybody that the accused has forcibly kidnapped her. Even when she stayed at Sivasagar for three months, she never told anybody that she was fo rcibly kidnapped by the accused without her consent. ii) From the evidence of PW 5, the victim girl, it is clear that she volunta rily eloped with the accused to live as husband and wife. When she came to know that her family has been excommunicated by the villagers, she informed her fathe r from Sivasagar so as to save her family from the villagers. The victim girl had voluntarily and freely gave consent for sexual inter iii) course with the accused appellant and the medical report shows that she is a maj or girl aged about 19 years and there was no proof of forceful intercourse. PW 4, mother of the victim had stated that wife of the accused Nekib inf iv) ormed them that her husband had taken the victim girl, which shows that they wer e known to each other since before. PW 4 had further stated that had the victim girl raised hue and cry, the accused could not have succeeded in taking her by f orce. v) PW 1, father of the victim girl had stated that she read upto Class VIII , thereafter she left her study and was at home for last three years, which show s that the victim girl was aged about 17/18 years on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, doctor opined that her age was above 19 years on the date of occ urrence. 19. While deposing in the court, PW 5, the victim girl has stated that she k new the accused since one year before the incident. She also went to the rented house of the accused situated at Kahikuchi in the district of Kamrup which finds support from the statement of DW 1, i.e. the accused. This fact indicates that the victim had prolonged love affairs with the accused. From the above, it has b ecome clear that the learned trial Court committed a manifest error in holding t he accused appellant guilty under Sections 366/376 IPC, inasmuch as, as per the doctor’s report, there was no sign of forceful intercourse on the part of the ac cused. More so, forceful commission of rape on the victim girl was not reported to any body. She remained silent about the same and it has become clear that she was consenting party. However, she gave her consent only for the fact that the accused introduced himself as Sri Vicky Deka and knowing him to be a Hindu she w ent with him and lived as husband and wife. Had she known him to be a Muslim boy she would not have gone with him as has come out from the evidence of the victi m girl and therefore, giving or non-giving consent to the sexual intercourse doe s not arise. 20. From the evidence of the victim girl as well as the doctor, I do not fin d that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge of offence under S ection 376 IPC. However, I find that offence under Section 419 IPC has been well established, inasmuch as, the victim girl all along in her statement made under Section 164 CrPC as well as while deposing in the court has time and again reit erated the same thing that had she known the accused to be a Muslim boy she woul d not have accompanied him and lived as husband and wife for three months. It wo uld be appropriate herein to refer the relevant Section namely Section 419 IPC w hich is quoted hereinbelow; (cid:28)Punishment for cheating by personation: whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both. (cid:29) 21. In case of punishment for cheating, the prosecution must prove, i) that the accused cheated the complainant, ii) that he did so by pretending to be some other person; by knowingly substitut ing one person for another, or by representing that he, or some other person, is a person other than the person he really is. In the instant case, from the discussion of the prosecution evidence it would reveal that the prosecution has been able to prove the above ingredients o f Section 419 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 22. In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court under Sections 3 66 and 376 IPC are set aside. But the conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned trial Court against the accused appellant under Section 419 IPC is uphe ld.
Legal Reasoning
23. The accused appellant stands acquitted of the offence under Sections 376 /366 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence under Section 419 IPC stands uphe ld. It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appell ant that the appellant is in custody since 30.4.2012, i.e. from the date of pass ing of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Earlier also he was in custody from 14.4.2009 to 24.7.2009. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith i f not wanted in any other case. 24. conviction and sentence. The present appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification on 25. Send down the lower court record forthwith.