Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1514 (GAU)

Rangendra Palak v. Prahlad Chutia

2015-12-10

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
ORDER : 1. By this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner has assailed the Judgment dated 07.02.2006 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 108(NL)/2004 arising out of G.R. Case No. 904/2003 whereby acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 341/366/506/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 27.07.2003, the accused persons, i.e. the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein were restrained and subsequently attempted to kidnap Rima Palak on her way to Lakhimpur College Girls Hostel with a common intention to compel her to marry with the accused No. 1. The father of Rima Palak had filed an ejahar on 29.07.2003 before the Officer-in-Charge of Lakhimpur Police Station, which is registered and numbered as Lakhimpur Police Station Case No. 625/2003 under Sections 342/366/511/506/34 I.P.C. On completion of the investigation, police had submitted charge-sheet against the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. The above respondents (accused in the aforesaid case) faced trial before the Court and the learned Court framed the charges under Sections 342/366/511/506/34 I.P.C. and when explained it to the accused persons (respondents herein), they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in course of trial and the defence examined none. The plea of defence was of total denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Court below held the accused not guilty for the offence and acquitted all the accused persons. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of acquittal, present revision has been preferred. 4. It may be mentioned here that at the time of hearing, the petitioner is not represented by the learned counsel in the matter and the revision is taken up for disposal on merit on the basis of material available on records. 5. I have heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State Respondent. The private respondents were not contesting the case since its inception. I have also considered the matters on record and the evidence so adduced by the prosecution. The informant herein as the father of the victim girl, who lodged F.I.R. after two days of the occurrence and said informant as PW – 2 has stated that he lodged the F.I.R. on being informed to the matter. I have also considered the matters on record and the evidence so adduced by the prosecution. The informant herein as the father of the victim girl, who lodged F.I.R. after two days of the occurrence and said informant as PW – 2 has stated that he lodged the F.I.R. on being informed to the matter. On the other hand, the said victim girl, Rima Palak/PW – 3 and her friends, namely, Jaya Chutia and Mausomi Bora as PW -3 and PW – 4 has stated that on the day of occurrence, while at the time of letting down from the bus, they boarded, suddenly the accused Prahlad Chutia caught hold PW – 3 on her hand and tried to take her in a Van but the owner of the bus namely, Lalit Baruah/PW – 6 interfered into the matter and took back PW – 3 and thereafter all the girls were left for their respective Hostel. The said witnesses has categorically stated that except holding the hand of PW – 3 by the accused Prahlad Chutia, there is no other untoward incident on the fateful day. Neither there was any indecent behaviour shown by the accused Prahlad Chutia. 6. Though PW – 6 has stated that accused caught hold the PW – 3 with an intention to take her in a nearby vehicle but on his interference, the accused could to succeed. As soon as he asked the accused as to why he caught hold PW – 3, then the accused released her. Thus the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the accused actually intended to kidnap the victim girl with a view to marry her and it is a matter of simple private affair between the accused and the victim girl. 7. The whole allegation of the informant is nullified by the evidence of PW – 1, Dilip Saikia, who happened to be an employee of the said bus and who has stated that the PW – 3 was going in their bus and as soon as she stepped down from the bus, then Rima Palak herself entered into the vehicle with the accused Parhlad Chutia and she told that she is afraid of going on rickshaw as she is going to the Hostel. Later on, the PW – 1 kept other witnesses, i.e. PWs – 3, 4 and 5 in the Hostel by their vehicle. Later on, the PW – 1 kept other witnesses, i.e. PWs – 3, 4 and 5 in the Hostel by their vehicle. 8. It is to be noted that the learned Trial Court has considered all the above aspects and has appreciated that the accused never intended to use any criminal offence on the victim girl and the victim girl never informed the matter to the hostel authority immediately after the occurrence if anything such serious happened to them and filing of F.I.R. by the informant after two days, that too, without any explanation of delay and absence of incriminating material is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty as alleged. 9. The informant nowhere explained the delay in filing the F.I.R. and there is a suggestion from the defence side that there is love affair between the accused Parhlad Chutia and the victim girl. That apart, except stating about some conduct of the accused Parhlad Chutia as aforesaid, the prosecution are totally silent about the involvement of other accused persons which is another vital deficiency in the prosecution case, which has rendered the prosecution case doubtful and devoid of merit. 10. The learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons from the charges on benefit of doubt. No illegality and irregularity, etc. found while appreciating the evidence and there is nothing to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Return the L.C.R.