Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 497 (GAU)

Md. Harez Ali v. State of Assam

2009-07-29

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2009
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. None appears for the accused-appellant when the matter was called upon. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional P.P., Assam, 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 16(DM)/2002 convicting the accused-appellant under Section 366, IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, rigorous imprisonment for another 1 (one) month. 3. The prosecution case is that on 19.4.1999 Mustt. Hasna Ara Begum, minor daughter of Md. Mafizuddin Ahmed, was abducted by Md. Harez Ali, the present accused-appellant, with intention to marry her while she was proceeding towards the house of one Dip Ram alongwith two of her friends, namely Lailu Neha and Rinku Ara from her school. The accused-appellant took her to road and tried to forcefully lift her in a vehicle, which was coming towards the said place. In the said vehicle, the victim's uncle was travelling. He intervened and sent her back to her parents with one Sri Naren Deka. The father of the victim girl lodged a complaint before the Court narrating the whole story. The learned Court, after recording the; statement of the complainant and holding an enquiry under Section 202 , Cr PC, issued process against the accused-appellant under Section 366, IPC and on his appearance, committed the case to Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Court framed charge under Section 366, IPC against the accused-appellant, which was read over and explained to him. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined, in all, 5 (five) witnesses including the victim girl to establish the charge against the accused-appellant. The defence examined no witness. In his statement under Section313, Cr PC, he denied the allegations made against him and stated that he has been implicated falsely due to land dispute with the father of the victim girl. The learned Trial Court, after the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated earlier. 5. In this case, the victim girl Mustt. Hasna Ara Begum was examined as PW-3. In her deposition she stated that on 19.4.1999 while she was returning from school she met her friends Lailu Neha and Rinku Ara, who requested her to go with them for an outing. 5. In this case, the victim girl Mustt. Hasna Ara Begum was examined as PW-3. In her deposition she stated that on 19.4.1999 while she was returning from school she met her friends Lailu Neha and Rinku Ara, who requested her to go with them for an outing. She refused to go with them but her aforesaid two friends forced her to go with them. On the way, the accused-appellant appeared near Kulshi Gate Chowk where he embraced and kissed her forcefully by holding her both hands. While she was crying, the accused-appellant asked her not to cry promising her to marry. After going for some distance an ambassador vehicle was found coming from the opposite side. The accused-appellant stopped the same and asked her to sit in the front seat of the vehicle. In the said vehicle, PW-1, Md. Azizul Hoque, uncle of the victim girl, was travelling by occupying a rear seat. Thereafter, PW-1 asked her to get down from the vehicle and enquired as to what happened but she could not give any reply immediately but she was crying. Thereafter, PW-1 sent the victim girl home with one Deben Deka. 6. PW-1, Md. Azizul Hoque, in his deposition stated that on the day of incident he was coming in the said ambassador and on reaching the Chowk, the accused-appellant stopped the vehicle He also said that he found the victim girl coming with the accused. On his enquiry, the accused told him that he was taking the girt to hospital. Thereafter. PW-1 sent the victim girl to her house with Deben Deka. 7. PW-4, Md. Mafizudding Ahmed is the father and informant of the victim girl. According to him, his minor daughter reported him about the incident and he filed the complaint petition, Exhibit-3, before the Magistrate. The statement of the victim girl was also recorded by the aforesaid Magistrate as a witness in the aforesaid complaint case. 8. The evidence of victim girl is corroborated by PW-1, the uncle of the victim girl, who happened to travel in the vehicle, which was stopped on the way by the accused-appellant who attempted to take away the victim girl against her consent by force in the said vehicle He found the victim girl crying out of fear and she could not readily reply the query made by him. Ultimately he arranged her return home with Deben Deka. Ultimately he arranged her return home with Deben Deka. The prosecution has been able to establish that the victim girl was forcefully abducted by the accused-appellant in the aforesaid vehicle and it was but for the presence of her uncle in the vehicle, she could not be taken away and thus she was saved. 9. The accused-appellant, as stated earlier, adduced no evidence in his defence. The evidence of the victim girl as well as the corroborated evidence of PW-1 could not be demolished by the defence in the cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses. The fact of stopping the vehicle and the presence of the victim girl with him and forcefully lifting her in the vehicle has been proved by none else than the uncle of the victim girl, PW-1, who was present in the said vehicle as an occupant in the rear seat, who arranged her safe return to her residence. Although in his statement under Section313, Cr PC the accused-appellant projected a case of old rivalry due to land dispute, which resulted into false implication, he did not adduce any evidence in that regard and as such, his plea cannot be accepted as correct and true. 10. Although the prosecution did not examine her two friends Lailu Neha and Rinku Ara, in my considered view, it would not affect the reliability and truthfulness of the evidence of victim girl and her uncle, PW-1. It is the victim girl, whose evidence is to be given due value and importance in such cases. Her evidence is found to be cogent, reliable and truthful besides being corroborated by the evidence of PW-1, who is an eye-witness, at least to the most relevant portion of the evidence, i.e. while the accused-appellant was trying to kidnap the victim girl in the said vehicle. In my considered view, the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence of the victim girl as well as the evidence of PW-1 and came to a correct conclusion. I have no different view to take in this matter and, therefore, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all shades of reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid, which warrants no interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 12. Send down the LCR forthwith.