Sankar Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) Taiyab Sk. , the appellant before us, was arraigned before Shri P. Dutta, learned Sessions Judge, Nadia, to answer the following charges: - "First that you, on or about the 23rd day of September, 1983 at Debagram, P.S. Kaliganj, District Nadia abducted a woman, to writ, Basanti Turi alias Fultara with intent that she may be seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person and thereby committed an offence, punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the Cognizance of the Court of Session. Secondly, that you on the same date, after abducting said Basanti committed rape upon her at Beldanga within P.S. Beldanga, District Murshidabad, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Session."
(2.) On conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 366, Indian Penal Code and for such conviction, awarded him the maximum sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The learned Sessions Judge did not, however, record any finding on the second charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code as the offence of rape was alleged to have been committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the sessions division of Nadia. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the above order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
(3.) While admitting the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court issued a suo motu Rule directing the appellant to show cause why the finding of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code should not be set aside and he should not be convicted and sentenced for the said offence or such other or further orders should not be .made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. This Rule was registered as Criminal Revision No. 1997 of 1985.;