JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the Respondent No. 2. 2. By this application, the Petitioner, who was the informant in S.T. Case No. 21 (WT/K) 2008 has preferred this appeal against acquittal under Section 372 Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the Judgment & Order, dated 06.10.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows: Sri Pronab Dutta, who was the brother of the missing lady lodged an F.I.R on 06.11.2004 with the O.C., Teliamura Police Station alleging that his sister Smt. Smriti Dutta (wherein after called the missing woman) was married by the Respondent, Sri Narayan Majumder, in 1999 and out of the said wedlock, one female child was born to them. In the FIR, it has been alleged that the said couple, along with their three months old daughter, used to live in rented houses and on 8.9.2004, her said husband i.e. the Respondent, took her along with their daughter to Silchar in connection with the medical treatment of the Respondent. As the said lady and her daughter did not return for long, Smt. Renu Bala Roy of Golabari contacted the Respondent and the Respondent informed her that did not know the said missing woman. In view of the above, suspecting that the sister of the informant was either killed or sent to some other place with certain evil design, the informant lodged a FIR. On receipt of the said FIR, police launched investigation into the matter and submitted the charge sheet under Section 364/468/120(B) IPC and forwarded the accused-Respondent to the Court to stand trial. The learned Sessions Judge, framed charge under Section 364 IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove their case, examined as many as 15 witnesses, including the Investigating Officer. The accused person was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The accused while denying the allegations, brought against him pleaded that on the relevant day, he was performing his duty in the school. In support of this plea, the accused examined four witnesses including himself. The accused person was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The accused while denying the allegations, brought against him pleaded that on the relevant day, he was performing his duty in the school. In support of this plea, the accused examined four witnesses including himself. Considering the evidence on records, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused person for the offence under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. another period of one year. Aggrieved by the said Judgment & Order, the accused, as Appellant, preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2008. As the Petitioner had taken the plea of alibi of attending the school at the relevant time, the learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 25.08.2009, while allowing the appeal directed the learned Trial Judge to decide the case, afresh, by giving opportunity to the accused to adduce additional evidence, without being influenced by the said judgment. Accordingly, the case was remanded back to the Trial Court and the Trial Judge allowed the accused person to adduce defence evidence and to prove the Attendance Register of the school. By proving the Attendance Register of the school, the accused person established that he attended school on 08.09.2004. Considering the working report (Ext. D1) and attendance register (Ext. D2), the signature of the accused persons (Ext. D2 1 series) etc., the learned Trial Judge, by this impugned Judgment & Order, dated 06.10.2010, came to the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted and set at liberty. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the informant, as the Petitioner, has come up with this appeal. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, I have carefully gone through the evidence on record. 6. The prosecution version is that, on 08.09.2004, accused, Sri Narayan Majumder kidnapped/abducted Smt. Smriti Dutta and her minor daughter, with a view that they might be murdered or disposed of as to be in danger of murder. The trial proceeded on the basis of the said charge. In order to establish a charge under Section 364 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the ungracious of the offence under Section 362 IPC. The trial proceeded on the basis of the said charge. In order to establish a charge under Section 364 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the ungracious of the offence under Section 362 IPC. The law in this regard has been laid by a learned Single Judge of Alahabad High Court in the case Tandi v. State of U.P. reported in 1975 Criminal Law Journal. It is the burden of the prosecution to establish, in a case under Section 364 IPC, that the accused person by any deceitful means induced any person to go from one place to another. In the present case, though the informant has claimed that the missing woman was the married wife of the accused person, the accused person denied the said allegation. 7. The informant (P.W. 1), in his evidence stated that whereabouts of the victim woman and her daughter was not known and that Smt Ratna Shil (P.W. 8) contacted the accused person, to whom he replied that he did not know Smt. Dutta and also expressed that she might have fled with some person. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it appears that he had no personal knowledge regarding inducement ply by the accused person or taking the missing woman by him on that particular day. 8. P.W. 2 stated that the accused person, along with his wife i.e. Smt. Dutta and their baby used to stay in his house for three years as tenants. According to this witness, the accused person along with his wife and daughter left his rented house and used to live in the house of Ranjulal Roy and during their stay in Ranjulal Roy's house, the accused told him that he would go to Shilchar with his wife for his treatment, for about one month. This witness did not state that he had seen the accused person proceeding with the said missing woman and her daughter. 9. Smt. Sabita Roy, P.W. 3 stated that a lady, with her female child, used to live in her house as a tenant for one year and that once she had told her that she would go to Shilchar for treatment of her husband. According to this witness, the said lady did not return. 10. 9. Smt. Sabita Roy, P.W. 3 stated that a lady, with her female child, used to live in her house as a tenant for one year and that once she had told her that she would go to Shilchar for treatment of her husband. According to this witness, the said lady did not return. 10. Smt. Gouri Gope (P.W. 4), in his evidence, stated that the accused person with his wife Smt. Dutta and their female baby used to stay in their house as tenant for about three years and thereafter, they stayed in the houses of Birendra Sutradhar and Sri Ranjulal Roy as tenant. She further stated that the accused, while visiting her house, told her that he would go to Shilchar along with his wife and daughter for his treatment and thereafter, on some other day they left for Shilchar. She did not see them going. Nor could she tell the date when they went. 11. Smt. Laxmi Sarkar (P.W. 5) did not state anything. 12. Sri Ranjulal Roy (P.W. 6) stated that one Tapu Shil (subsequently, stated to be Smriti Dutta) along with her daughter used to stay in her house as tenant for ten months and that on, one occasion, her husband came and stayed with his said wife. From the evidence of this witness it is found that the said missing woman was visited by the accused person only once. This witness further stated that the missing woman had told her that she would go to Shilchar along with her baby for treatment of her husband and that accordingly, one morning, she left her house. This witness did not state that the missing woman had left her house along with her husband for Shilchar. 13. Sri Samarendra Sen (P.W. 7) stated that the missing woman visited his house and told him that she would go to Shilchar along with her daughter for treatment of her husband. According to this witness, when she enquired the said woman about the where about of her husband, she replied that her husband was waiting in the bus stand. 14. Smt. Ratna Shil (P.W. 8) stated that, about nine years ago, one evening, Smriti Dutta along with her daughter stayed in her house for a night and on the next morning at about 9.00 a.m., her husband Narayan Majumder came to meet her. 14. Smt. Ratna Shil (P.W. 8) stated that, about nine years ago, one evening, Smriti Dutta along with her daughter stayed in her house for a night and on the next morning at about 9.00 a.m., her husband Narayan Majumder came to meet her. According to this witness, she took Narayan Majumder and Smt. Dutta to the house of Sri Jadu Gope for arranging a house for them. She further stated that after the missing of Smt. Smriti Dutta, she asked Narayan Majumder about her whereabouts and he replied that he did not know Smriti Dutta. 15. Smt. Saraswati Acharjee (P.W. 9) stated that Tapu @ Smriti Dutta visited her house and she told her that Narayan Majumder was her husband. This witness stated that she came to know that the said lady went to Shilchar and did not return. 16. Smt. Sefali Bhattacharjee (P.W. 10) stated that she knew Smriti Dutta and Narayan Majumder. She expressed her ignorance about their relationship. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. But, nothing incriminating, against the accused was elicited. 17. Smt. Gita Majumder (P.W. 11), who was examined by the prosecution also turned hostile and she was cross-examined by the prosecution. But no substantive evidence could be brought out from her cross-examination. 18. According to Sri Birendra Sutradhar (P.W. 12), Smt. Smriti Dutta and her daughter used to live in his house as paying guest for about ten months and her husband Narayan Majumder used to meet her during the day time. He stated that once, Smt. Dutta had told him that she would go to Shilchar for treatment of her husband. 19. Smt. Renu Bala Roy (P.W. 13) stated that Smt. Tapu Dutta used to stay in her house along with her baby as a tenant and that the accused person also used to stay with them occasionally. She further stated that one, Narayan Majumder i.e. the accused told her that he would go to Shilchar for his treatment along with his family. She also stated that, before leaving her house, he told that he would go to arrange a seat in the bus for going to Shilchar and that he left at about 4 to 5 p.m., while his wife left in the early morning of the next day. 20. Smt. Sikta Sutradhar (P.W. 14) stated nothing against the accused person. 21. She also stated that, before leaving her house, he told that he would go to arrange a seat in the bus for going to Shilchar and that he left at about 4 to 5 p.m., while his wife left in the early morning of the next day. 20. Smt. Sikta Sutradhar (P.W. 14) stated nothing against the accused person. 21. P.W. 15 was the Investigating Officer. In his evidence stated that he examined the witnesses and submitted the charge sheet and could not trace out the missing woman and her daughter. 22. From the above evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, it appears that though Smriti Dutta stated that she would go to Shilchar with her husband for medical treatment, none of the aforesaid witnesses stated that she along with her baby gone with the accused person either to the bus stand for proceeding towards Shilchar or to any other place. None of the witnesses saw them going together to Shilchar. 23. Carefully perusing the evidence, given by the prosecution witnesses, I am inclined to hold that there is no substantive, cogent and reliable evidence to believe that the accused person had either induced the missing woman to go any place with him or that he had moved from her place of stay. In support of his plea that, on the particular day, i.e. on 08.09.2004, the accused person was attending his school, he adduced defence evidence and exhibited the school attendance register (Ext. D2 series). The said register clearly reveals that, on 9th of September, the accused person attended school at 10.15 a.m. Mr. Bimal Debbarma, who was also Assistant Head Master of the school, stated that, on 08.09.2004, accused i.e. Narayan Majumder was present in the school and that he prepared a working report, which was sent to the Inspector of the schools. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, but no contradiction could be elicited to demolish his evidence. From the above, it appears that the defence could establish, prima facie, that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 08.09.2004, the accused attended the school. Therefore, it is hardly believable that he took victim woman to Shilchar, which is a place, situated at a distance of about 250 to 350 k.m. as indicated by the P.W. 15. 24. From the above, it appears that the defence could establish, prima facie, that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 08.09.2004, the accused attended the school. Therefore, it is hardly believable that he took victim woman to Shilchar, which is a place, situated at a distance of about 250 to 350 k.m. as indicated by the P.W. 15. 24. It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal, unless the impugned judgment is based on no evidence or suffers from perversity or gross illegality, interference is not warranted. Considering the evidence on record and the impugned Judgment & Order, I have no hesitation in holding that the learned Trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record and come to a right finding on the basis of reasons. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity or gross illegality, it is the cardinal principal of criminal law that the prosecution is required to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt and prosecution case must stand on its own legs. 25. In view of the above, the accused person, by proving the attendance register and examining the Assistant Head Master of the school could establish that, on the date of occurrence i.e. on 08.09.2004, he was performing his school. Therefore, it is hardly believable that he took the missing woman on that particular day to Shilchar. 26. Considering the entire aspect of the matter and the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no merit in this appeal for admission. 27. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 28. Return the L.C.R. Appeal dismissed