- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No. 2(11)/81 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 8th Court, Alipore, convicting the appellant under Section 366 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for 7 1/2 years with a specific direction that the period of detention already undergone by the accused be set off against the period of conviction.
(2.) In short the case of the prosecution is the appellant/accused kidnapped a woman, namely, Seema Gour from a house at Mahatma Gandhi Road, P. S. Budge on 5th November, 1979. On that day, the victim girl's father Shyam Karan Gour (P. W. 1) had left for his office. Her brother Rajesh (P. W. 8) had left for his school at 10 a. m. Her mother had also been to her sister's house at Behala. In fact, the victim was all alone in the house. The victim Seema was a student of Kenduadihi Girls High School in the district of Bankura and she used to read in class VIII. But at the relevant point of time she was not prosecuting her studies and used to stay at their Budge house. On that day, the appellant/accused came and approached Seema when she was all alone in the house to leave the house with him and also allured her that he would marry her and accordingly Seema left her house with accused whom she knew from before as Amit Roy. They had been to Howrah Station wherefrom they went to different places like Burdwan, Durgapur and Bankura. In the meantime, her father Shyam Karan (P. W. 1) returned in the afternoon and he did not find his wife or his daughter in the house. On enquiry from his son he came to learn that possibly her daughter accompanied her mother when the later had been to his sister's house at Behala. But on 8th or 9th November, 1979 his wife returned home alone and from her he came to know that their daughter Seema did not accompany her. Then he made enquirie from Tarun Babu (P. W. 6) a nearby shop owner and came to learn that one of his employees accused Mustakim @ Ganga was also missing from very date, when his daughter Seema was missing. He also came to know from Kamal Chakraborty (P. W. 7) that he had seen the accused with Seema going together on 5.11.79. Thereafter, the witness had been to Budge P. S. and lodged the F. I. R. On the basis of the F. I. R. one case was started and P. W. 29, S. I. Monindra Nath Roy who was attached to Budge P. S. at the relevant point of time took up the investigation of the same. In course of the investigation of the case, the said witness visited the house in which the informant used to stay as a tenant, prepared rough sketch map, examined the witnesses. Searched for the accused and also the victim girl; but could not succeed initially. Subsequently, on 11.1.80, the victim girl was recovered from the house of the complainant pursuant to the statement of the complainant. He seized wearing apparel of the victim girl on a seizure list. He got the victim girl examined medically. Subsequently on 13.1.80 he arrested the appellant/accused from his house within Budge P. S. On completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 366/376 I. P. C. Subsequently, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials on record framed charge under Section 366 I. P. C. against the accused. The trial proceeded when the appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to such charge.
(3.) The learned trial Judge found on the basis of the evidence on record that as per previous arrangement with the accused, victim girl had been to a road-crossing wherefrom the accused took her to different places from 5.11.79 till her return to their house on 11.1.80. He also noted that two of the relations of the accused and one owner of a house at Bishnupur stated that the accused lived with the victim girl in the house for some time as husband and wife. He further pointed out that all these facts and circumstance, which came out through the evidence were admitted by the accused in the confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. He further noted that the accused made the confessional statement when he was on bail and under no compulsion from any quarter to make such a confession. The learned Judge specifically noted that accused admitted in the confessional statement that pursuant to their decision he and Seema, the victim girl had been to Howrah station and from there went to different places. He also admitted that he and Seema stayed in the house of his maternal uncle and aunt for few days and he also kept Seema in the house of P. Ws. 19 and 20 and within this time committed sexual intercourse with Seema on several occasions. In this way, he came to a firm finding that there was active participation of the accused in the matter of taking away Seema from the house of her father and in fact the accused took away Seema from the house of her father and made a confessional statement on this point. He also came to a finding that Seema was much below 18 years of age on the date of the commission of the offence on 5.11.79. Therefore, it was established that appellant/accused kidnapped Seema a minor girl with the intent that she might be compelled to marry against her will or in order that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse.;