Indrajit Chatterjee, J. - (1.) TWO appeals are before us. Both have arisen from the judgment and order of conviction dated 31st January, 2008, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Uluberia, Howrah, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2007, wherein the present appellants before us were convicted in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as Code) and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/ - each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten months each for the offence committed under Section 366 of the Code.
(2.) IN respect of the charge under Section 376(2)(g) of the Code, both the appellants were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ - each in default, simple imprisonment for 12 months each. Unfortunately, there is not note in the judgment or in the order of conviction as to whether both the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively. It may be noted that both the appellants are now in Correctional Home and serving sentence. The Trial court was however pleased to acquit both the accused appellants in respect of the charge punishable under Sections 379 & 380 of the Code. As against the common judgement two appeals have been preferred. As the same fact and question of law are involved in both the appeals, both are taken together for hearing.
(3.) THE case which went to trial can be stated in brief thus, that an F.I.R. was lodged by P.W.2 the mother, with the Officer -in -Charge, Uluberia Police Station on 11th August, 1990 at 6.30 hours (exhibit -8), giving rise to Uluberia Police Station Case No. 158 of 1990 dated 11th August, 1990. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that the de facto complainant used to reside with her daughter and two sons in the place of occurrence (on the side of Bombay road) and she alleged that her daughter, the victim girl, was taken away by four persons and she was also tied with 'saree' and as such she could not resist the crime. In the F.I.R. she divulged that she could identify Nazu @ Nazrul Mullick and Dulal @ Sk. Hasmat. Those miscreants also took away money from below her bed. She raised alarm, which attracted Purna Mondal, Ajoy Mallick, Naresh Ch. Maity and others. They all went in search of the victim and the victim was located in a nearby brick field in an injured condition, she was found without any clothing on the body and some ornaments were snatched away. The recovery of the victim girl was possible because of apprehension of Nazu, accused appellant, who confessed that Sahabuddin, Sk. Dulal, Khokan @ Asgar Molla and himself committed the crime and the said person also ravished this victim (P.W.1).;