Judgment · High Court · 2012

#3. The police investigated the case and after completion of the inv estigation, submitted charge sheet No. 36 of 2003 dated 28-06-2003 against the a ccused-appellant and six others including Sri Ganesh Konwar, who was shown as ab sconder, under Section 147/366/376/511 IPC. Since it was a sessions triable case , the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial whereupon the case w as registered as Sessions Case No. 79 of 2004. Later on, the learned Sessions Ju dge, Morigaon transferred the aforesaid case to the Court of the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Morigaon for trial and disposal.

#4. Following the prescribed procedure, charge was framed against th e accused-appellant and six others, including Sri Ganesh Konwar (absconder) unde r Section 147/366/376/511 IPC.

#5. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove its case. On the other hand, the defence plea was of total denial. The accused pers ons were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C.

#6. The learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Morigaon after considering th e evidence on record held that the charge under Section 147/376/511 IPC could no t be proved against any of the accused persons. However, the learned trial Court found the accused-appellant and Sri Ganesh Konwar (absconder) to be guilty and convicted them under Section 366/34 IPC. But the charge under Section 366/34 IPC was found to be not proved against the other five accused persons and, accordin gly, they were acquitted. By the impugned judgment and order dated 02-08-2005, t he learned trial Court sentenced the accused-appellant to serve R. I for eight y ears under Section 366 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to serv e further R.I for two years, to run consecutively.

#7. ant. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P, Assam for the State. Heard Mr. H. K. Deka, learned Sr. counsel for the accused-appell Mr. Deka, learned Sr. counsel for the accused-appellant, referri 8. ng to the provision of Section 366 IPC submits that two conditions must be fulfi lled in order to bring a case within the ambit of the said provision. According to him, the prosecution must prove that the accused had induced the informant wo man or compelled her by force to go to any place by deceitful means, that such a bduction took place with the intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercour se and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the victim woman may be sed uced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. He submits that the e vidence on record do not prove commission of any offence by the accused-appellan t under Section 366 IPC. Asserting that there was no involvement of the accused- appellant in the entire episode, which essentially arose out of a love affair be tween the absconding accused Sri Ganesh Konwar and the victim woman, learned cou nsel submits that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove a case under Secti on 366 IPC. He, therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence of the accu sed appellant is bad in law and should be interfered with by this Court.

#9. On the other hand, Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P, Assam suppor ts the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court on the accused -appellant.

#10. relevant portion of the evidence adduced. To appreciate the rival contentions, let us briefly examine the PW-1 is Miss Niru Devi, the informant of the case. She stated th 11. at the incident took place on the 9th day of the Asamese month of Bohag at about 12 noon. At that time she was working in the paddy field with her paternal aunt Smti. Bhanumati. While she was busy in weeding the paddy seedlings, accused Gan esh Konwar and Siteswar Konwar (accused-appellant) chased her and forcibly caugh t her in the field and thereafter took her to the house of one Sri Motiram Konwa r where she was kept confined. She stated that the inmates of the house did not open the door when her father, paternal uncle and neighbours had reached there. Ultimately, her paternal uncle Sri Bulan Nath forcibly opened the door of the ho use and took her away. While she was being taken away, Sri Ganesh Konwar and Sri Pabitra Konwar resisted by pulling her in the opposite direction and in the pro cess, one silver chain and one silver ear pin of hers fell down. She categorical ly stated that none of the accused persons committed any unlawful act during the time of her confinement inside the house of Sri Motiram Konwar. In her cross-ex amination, she stated that the field where she was working is a large area where many men were working. She also stated that when she entered the house of Sri M otiram Konwar, the door was blocked from inside by men and women. She further st ated that there was a girl, one daughter-in-law and one aged lady in the house o f Sri Motiram Konwar and that her maternal uncle took her home by lifting her wi th both his hands.

#12. PW-2 is Sri Sitaram Nath, the father of the informant. According to him, he was at home when his sister Bhanumati rushed home and told him about the incident whereafter he, his wife and his brother rushed to the house of Sri Motiram Konwar where they found that his daughter was raising hue and cry insid e the house. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not an eye witnes s to the incident.

#13. PW-3 is Smti. Mohila Devi, who is the mother of the informant. S he stated that she was at home with her husband when her eldest daughter Rina De vi came home rushing and told them that the informant was taken away by Ganesh a nd Siteswar and that she was kept confined in the house of Sri Motiram Konwar. S he also stated that she along with her husband and her brother-in-law rushed to the house of Sri Motiram Konwar and the brother-in-law Shri Bulan Nath forcibly opened the door of the house and brought back the informant to their house. In h er cross-examination, she stated that the three of them did not enter into the h ouse of Sri Motiram Konwar and that it was her eldest daughter Rina who brought the informant home.

#14. Sri Motiram Konwar deposed as the PW-4. He stated that on the da te of occurrence at about 12 noon while he was at home, Ganesh Konwar and the in formant came together and entered into the house of Prabitra Konwar, his son. He thought that the two of them came casually. After a while, the father of the in formant came to his house and by raising a hue and cry, demanded that his daught er be brought out. At this, Motiram told him to take her back. When he called ou t to the informant, she declined to go and said that she would marry Ganesh. The n her parents dragged her out and took her home. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he saw Ganesh and the informant coming together by holding each othe r’s hand and also talking with each other while entering into the house of Pabit ra. He was categorical in his statement that he did not see any other accused pe rson in front of Pabitra’s house, which was different from his at that time.

#15. PW- 5 is Smti. Rina Devi, the elder sister of the informant. She stated that she was informed about the incident by her paternal aunt, Smti. Bha numati Devi, and thereafter she informed her parents. In her cross-examination, she admitted that whatever she had stated was heard from her aunt, Bhanumati.

#16. PW-6 is Smti. Bhanumati Devi, the paternal aunt of the informant . She is the most crucial witness inasmuch as according to the prosecution story , she was present in the paddy field along with the informant when Ganesh and Si teswar (accused-appellant) allegedly took her away forcibly. In her examination in chief, she stated that when she along with her niece were returning home at a bout 12 noon on the date of occurrence, after working in the paddy field, Ganesh came and restrained the informant. When she protested, Ganesh dragged away the informant without saying anything to her. She then came and informed Rina Devi, PW-5, about the incident. She was categorical in her deposition that nobody was with Ganesh when the incident took place. In her cross-examination, she stated t hat there are dwelling houses of about 4/5 families near the place from where th e informant was taken away.

#17. While PW-7, Shri Arun Talukdar, is the I.O, Dr. Giri Kanta Borah , the Medical Officer, is the PW-8. The doctor in his evidence proved the medica l report submitted by him, which was exhibited as Exbt.4. As per the medical evi dence, there was no evidence of sexual intercourse, no definite injury in the bo dy and the private parts of the informant and that clinically and radiologically the age of the victim girl was above 18 years of age.

#18. Having surveyed the relevant portion of the evidence on record, certain glaring discrepancies in the different versions of the prosecution witne sses are quite noticeable. On the one hand, the informant, PW-1, stated that whi le she was working in the paddy field along with her paternal aunt Bhanumati, Ga nesh Konwar and Siteswar Konwar chased her and forcibly caught her in the field and thereafter took her to the house of Shri Motiram Konwar but on the other han d, PW-6, Smti. Bhanumati Devi, the paternal aunt, who was admittedly present alo ng with the informant, stated that while they were returning home after working in the field, Ganesh came and restrained the informant and when she protested, h e dragged the informant away without saying anything to her. While the PW-1 stat ed that the field from where she was forcibly taken away is a large area with ma ny men working there, on the other hand, PW-6 in her cross-examination stated th at there are dwelling houses of 4/5 families near the place from where the infor mant was taken away. The above glaring contradictions between the versions of th e informant PW-1 and that of the most crucial witness, the eye witness, PW-6, st rikes at the very foundation of the prosecution case. Both the versions cannot s tand together as true. On the other hand, from both the versions, it transpires that there were many people nearby when the alleged occurrence took place. It ca nnot be believed that a young woman can be forcibly dragged away in front of so many people without there being any resistance or obstruction by the people to s uch an act. But the most crucial piece of evidence is the clear statement of PW- 6 that nobody was with Ganesh when he dragged the informant away, which is in sy nc with the evidence of PW-4 that he did not see any other accused person when G anesh and the informant came together to Pabitra’s house. On the face of such ev idence, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the accused appellan t was an accomplice of the other accused Ganesh in the act of taking away the in formant.

#19. Coming to the other aspect of the matter, PW-1 categorically sta ted that none of the accused persons committed any unlawful act on her during th e time of her confinement in the house of Shri Motiram Konwar. This evidence of PW-1 along with the medical evidence as noticed above that there was no evidence of sexual intercourse and no definite injury mark on the body and on the privat e parts of the informant, clearly belies the charge of sexual assault on the inf ormant.

#20. Section 366 IPC provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any wom an with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she wi ll be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, would commit an offence under that section. To constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary f or the prosecution to prove that the accused had induced the informant woman or compelled her by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitf ul means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the informant may be seduced to illicit intercourse or that the accused knew it to be likely that the informant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction . The Supreme Court in the case of Gabbu Vrs. State of MP; reported in (2006) 5 SCC 740 has held that mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. The mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough ; it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit in tercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illic it intercourse. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has clearly stated that unl ess the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in S ection 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Se ction 366 IPC.

#21. On an overall consideration of the materials on record including the evidence adduced and following the settled legal proposition as noticed abo ve, I am of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused a ppellant had committed an offence under Section 366 IPC. There is clearly a doub t as to the place of the incident and particularly about the involvement of the accused appellant. Rather, the sole eye witness to the incident PW-6 has categor ically stated that there was no one else with Ganesh when he took her niece away . For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction of the accused appella 22. nt under Section 366 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this appeal is allowe d. The judgment and order dated 02.08.2005 passed by the learned Asstt. Session s Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No.79 of 2004 insofar the conviction and sent ence imposed on the accused appellant is concerned is set aside. The accused app ellant, Shri Siteswar Konwar be set at liberty forthwith.

#24. Registry to send down the LCR. No cost.