- (1.) THIS jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, first Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. VII (October) 1997 convicting the accused and sentencing him to suffer R. I. for 4 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R. I. for three months under Section. 366 I. P. C. and also to suffer R. I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R. I. for three months under Section 376/109 I. P. C. with the further direction that both the sentences will run concurrently. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act bearing C. R. A. No. 326 of 1998 has already been allowed vide order dated 27. 10. 98: One Rashmoni Haider lodged complaint with the Bally P. S. alleging that on 12. 03. 92 her daughter aged about 14 years went to take bath in the Ganges, but returned home after a long time. After taking meal her daughter left the house and did not come back. After search she could not be traced out. On the next day a diary was lodged with Bally P. S. Gobru and Selim disclosed that they would trace out the victim, but no troubles should be created by the de facto-complainant against them. The mother of the victim disclosed the matter to the neighbours who started searching for the victim girl. On being chased by the local people, Gobru and Selim tried to flee away but they were apprehended. Thereafter, the victim girl was recovered from the house of one Azad. On being asked the victim girl disclosed that on the material day at night she came back home, but found that the door of her house was locked. At that time Azad came there and took her away to Bhot Bagan. At Bhot Bagan she was raped by Azad. When the local people went in the house of Azad, Gobru and Selim on seeing them started fleeing away, but they were apprehended. Azad fled away from the house. On receiving the complaint, the Bally p. S. Case No. 70/1992 was started and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Azad and Gobru absconded and the learned Magistrate vide Order dated 23. 09. 1997 filed the case against them for the present. The present appeal has been preferred by Sk. Selim who faced the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah.
(2.) THE learned Judge framed charges under Sections 366 and 376/109 i. P. C. against the accused Sk. Selim. In this case the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the neighbours, the parents, the doctor, the victim girl and the I. O. P. W. 3 was declared hostile. After considering the materials-on-record the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused and passed the sentence as stated above.
(3.) THE learned Trial Judge observed that the victim girl was about 14 years of age at the time of the occurrence and the accused took part in abducting the victim girl to the house of Azad. The learned Trial Judge further observed that this accused abetted Azad to commit rape on the victim girl. The learned Judge further held that from the evidence-on-record it was clear that the accused Sk. Selim was apprehended after chase. The learned Trial judge ultimately convicted the accused under Sections 366 I. P. C. and 376/109 I. P. C. and passed the sentence as aforesaid.;