HABIL MIA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Appeal No. 45 (WT/S) 85, convicting the two appellants namely Habil Mia and Hariz Mia, under Section 366 read with Section 149, IPC with a sentence of RI for six years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default RI for further one year and also convicting them to RI for six months each under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC, all the aforesaid sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts briefly are that a First Information Report was lodged on 24-3-92 at about 19.45 hours at the Sunamura Police Station by one Nur Ahmed alleging that at about 18.30/19.00 hours on the same day while he was in his bed in north Viti hut and his daughter Hasina Khatun, aged about 15/16 years, was cooking rice in the east Viti hut suddenly he heard a cry and when he opened the door and ran out he saw that Habil Mia, appellant No. 1, had caught hold of his daughter Hasina and was dragging her to the western side of his house. Two or three persons were standing in the courtyard with lathi in their hands, whom he could not recognise. It is further alleged in the FIR that when he went running and pulled his daughter back, Hariz Mia, appellant No. 2, gave him a lathi blow on his head and right hand as a consequence of which he fell down and the miscreants went away with his daughter. Thereafter, he informed the incident to the local BSF who took him to the Police Station in the vehicle. It has been further stated in the FIR that a month before the incident Habil Mia wanted to marry his daughter Hasina but Nur Ahmed, the father of the victim girl, did not agree to the proposal and hence he came alongwith other persons and kidnapped his daughter Hasina. On the basis of the said FIR, a case was registered under Sections 148/149/447/323/366 IPC, being Sunamura P. S. Case No. 22(3)/82 and investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed against 10 accused persons including the appellants.

(3.) On receipt of the charge-sheet, the SDJM, Sumamura, committed the accused persons to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused persons on 4-9-85under Section 366 read with 149 IPC as well as Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused Suraj Mia from whose house the victim girl was recovered by the police soon after the incident was further charged under Section 368 IPC. During trial, 17 witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case but no one was examined by the defence. Amongst the PWs, Nur Ahmed (PW-1) the informant, Akhina Khatun (PW-2) the sister of Nur Ahmed, Moiromnessa (P.W. 10) wife of Nur Ahmed, Hasina Khatun (PW-8), the victim girl, and Abdul Malik (PW-6) the neighbour of the informant Nur Ahmed, are all eye witnesses to the occurrence. Jalu Mia (PW 11) is the witness to the seizure of articles from the house of the informant, PW-13 is the officer in-charge of the Sonamura Police Station who received the FIR and Dr. Sailesh Ranjan Das (PW 4) is the doctor who examined the injuries on PW 1 and PW-2 in the occurrence, PW-17 is the investigating Officer who conducted the investigation into the case. On the basis of the aforesaid prosecution evidence, by the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, convicted only the two appellants and acquitted all other accused persons on the ground that there is no evidence implicating them in the offences.