- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-5-97 passed in Sessions Case No. 513/92 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj held the appellant guilty under Sections 366, 376 and 343 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 366 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to undergo RI for six months and further sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment to undergo RI for six months and further sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 343 IPC but sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that Milan Kumar Sana gave his written report to the Officer Incharge of Littipara Police Station on 2-6-1992 stating, inter alia, therein that his daughter was found missing from 24-5-1992 and from 24-5-1992 to 2-6-1992 he was searching for his daughter and ultimately he came to know that appellant Noor Alam Momin has kidnapped his daughter. The informant went to the house of Noor Alam but he was not found there. He searched his daughter in the houses of the relatives of the appellant but he was unable to find out. On 2-6-92 at 6 a.m. he came to know that appellant had locked his daughter in his house, then he along with his brother-in-law Charla Benjamin his wife Shakuntala Devi and his brother-in-law Victor Lal went to the house of the appellant, and found his daughter locked from outside in a room of his house. His daughter Minu Kumari was crying inside the room to meet him but the appellant did not allow him and his relatives to see her and appellant became ready to assault him and then he rushed to Littipara Police Station upon which Officer Incharge of Littipara police station came to the house of the appellant and recovered his daughter Minu Kumari from the house of the appellant in presence of witness Raghubir Sahu and Charla Benjamin and signatures of the witnesses were obtained (Exts. 1 and 1/1). After recovery, the prosecutrix was sent to Pakur sub-divisional Hospital for her medical check up and on 4-4-92 Dr. Rashmi Jaiswal examined her and issued certificate (Ext.) I.O. recorded the statement of prosecutrix and submitted charge-sheet in the Court ol ACJM, Pakur. After perusal of charge-sheet the learned ACJM took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of session. The learned Sessions Judge after recording evidence of the witnesses both oral and documentary, held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
(3.) Prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. PW 7 is Minu Kumari and she is the most important witness. She has deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence at about 3-4 a.m. she had gone to answer the call of nature where this appellant caught her by exhibiting Chhura and forcibly took her to his house and she was kepi, in the house for one day and appellant committed rape on her and thereafter on the next day she was taken to Pakur, where two lawyers met her and forcibly obtained her signature on some papers typed in English and she appeared before the Registrar and from there she was taken to a photographer's shop, where her photographs with the appellant was photographed arid from there she was taken to the house of the appellant's father at Farakka, where rape was committed on her. She further deposed that she forcibly wrote some letters in the name of appellant and thereafter she was brought to Taljhari and at Taljhari she was kept in a room locked from the outside. Although, she was weeping at that time but by exhibiting Chhura appellant threatened her for commission oi her murder and thereafter she was much terrified and unable to speak anything to anybody, but when her father and others came then she wanted to see them but she was forced not to come out and after arrival of police she was rescued from the house ol the appellant. In course of her deposition she had admitted that photographs were taken in the shop at Pakur and further thai some lawyers obtained her signature on papers typed in English and she was forced to write some letters in the name of appellant.;