JUDGEMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. The appellant in this case is Azad Ali @Azad Mia @Azad Ali Miya, who has filed his appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No. 129/2022. Azad Ali (herein after also referred to as the appellant or the accused), has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa under Section 366 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC for short) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation and under Section 370 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. Arguments for the appellant:- 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the materials available on record and arrived at the erroneous finding which is liable to be set aside. The Prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant deserves a benefit of doubt. The learned Trial Court has ignored the fact that the case is fraught with contradictions. The evidence of the victim does not tally with the evidence of the informant, who is also the mother of the victim, vis-à-vis, the evidence of PW-3. This impugned judgment has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. The remaining part of the argument on behalf of the petitioner will be discussed at the appropriate stage to avoid prolixity. Argument for the State:- 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor laid stress in his argument that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant. The offences are of a serious nature and the appellant does not deserve a benefit of doubt. The Trial Court's judgment warrants no interference and this is a fit judgment to be upheld. For the sake of brevity, the remaining part of the argument on behalf of the prosecution will be discussed at the appropriate stage. Decision of the learned Trial Court:- 4. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that it is an admitted fact that the victim went missing on 08.03.2017 and the informant lodged the FIR on 11.04.2017, which resulted in the delay of one month three days. Decision of the learned Trial Court:- 4. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that it is an admitted fact that the victim went missing on 08.03.2017 and the informant lodged the FIR on 11.04.2017, which resulted in the delay of one month three days. It was held by the learned Trial Court that there was no dispute that the victim eloped with the appellant as they had a love relationship and it is a settled law that delay is not always fatal to the prosecution case. It was held that as the victim was under the control of ‘house of prostitution’ (brothel) at Siliguri, she was unable to lodge the FIR and inform her husband or her family members about the incident and this resulted in the delay in the lodgment of the FIR. It was also held that obviously after the victim woman went missing, her family members tried to trace her out which also resulted in the delay in the lodgment of the FIR. 5. The learned Trial Court has also observed that the informant is a rustic villager and she was not aware that the FIR had to be lodged promptly. It was further held by the learned Trial Court that the defense has not disputed that the victim woman was recovered from a ‘house of prostitution’ at Siliguri and thus the evidence on record reveals that the evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5, regarding recovery of the victim woman from a brothel at Siliguri and thus the failure of the prosecution to examine the woman from whose house the victim was recovered was not fatal to the case. 6. Although it is in the evidence that PWs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have not witnessed the incident, the sole testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence and she has admitted that she eloped with the appellant as she had a love relationship with the appellant. 7. The learned Trial Court has held the appellant guilty of offence under Sections 366 and 370 of the IPC as the appellant induced the victim to go with him as they had a love relationship. As the victim went with him up to Siliguri, the appellant then asked the victim to sit under an over bridge and then abandoned her. 8. As the victim went with him up to Siliguri, the appellant then asked the victim to sit under an over bridge and then abandoned her. 8. The learned Trial Court accepted the submission of the prosecution that the appellant who induced the victim to go with him up to Siliguri abandoned the victim and sold her in a ‘house of prostitution’ which clearly depicts that from the inception, the appellant had the intention to take the victim to Siliguri and sell her which is an act of human trafficking. The victim was unaware of the appellant's sinister ploy. The appellant sold the victim for illegal sexual activity to compel her to illicit intercourse. 9. It was held by the learned Trial Court that the evidence of the victim proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant took the victim to Siliguri and sold her in a prostitution center. The appellant was thereby also held guilty of offence under Section 370 (2) of the IPC. Analysis of Evidence and Decision:- 10. To decide this case in its proper perspective, it is necessary to advert to the evidence. 11. The victim deposed as PW-1 that the appellant expressed his love for her and he induced her to travel with him up to Barpeta. This incident took place in the year 2017 and on being induced, the victim and the appellant went to Barpeta Road and boarded a bus and they proceeded to Sorbhog and thereafter to Bongaigaon. The appellant took her from Bongaigaon to Siliguri on a train and kept her under the over bridge and thereafter he disappeared. After some time, a woman came up to her and informed her that the appellant asked her to take her (PW-1) to her house. The woman then took her to her house and after one week, the woman called different men and compelled her to have physical relationship with them. PW-1 further deposed that she asked the woman about the appellant and the woman replied that the appellant had already sold her to the woman concerned. She (PW-1) then asked the woman for a mobile phone to call her family members, but the particular woman did not provide her the same. She then borrowed a mobile phone from another person and called her sister and informed her about the incident. She (PW-1) then asked the woman for a mobile phone to call her family members, but the particular woman did not provide her the same. She then borrowed a mobile phone from another person and called her sister and informed her about the incident. Her sister then informed her husband, (PW-1's husband), who along with her brother and another person, namely Rashid, came to Siliguri and recovered her from the woman's house. The woman claimed that as PW-1 was sold to her, she would not allow her to go back. Then, PW-1's husband paid Rs. 270,000/- to the particular woman and brought her (PW-1) back to her house. PW-1's mother then lodged an FIR with the police who produced PW-1 before the Magistrate and the Magistrate recorded her statement. 12. PW-1's mother deposed as PW-2 that the appellant was known to her. About 5 years back, her daughter was missing from her house. They set out on a frantic search, but failed to trace her out. They had their suspicions as her daughter was friendly with the appellant. This impelled her to lodge the FIR against the appellant. After three months, her daughter was recovered from Siliguri, when her daughter called them over phone and informed them that she was in Siliguri and then her son-in-law went to bring back her daughter. 13. PW-3 is the victim's husband and he deposed her about 5-6 years ago, the appellant kidnapped his wife and took her to Siliguri and after 3 months of her disappearance, his wife informed him over phone that she was at Siliguri and asked him to bring her back. He went to Siliguri and brought her back. 14. Abdul Rashid Sonar deposed as PW-4 that one day in the year 2017, the victim's elder sister came to his house and informed him that one person sold the victim at Siliguri. Thereafter, he along with Babul Mullah and the victim's husband went to a ‘house of prostitution’ at Siliguri and found the victim woman. Thereafter, the owner of the particular ‘brothel’ allowed them to bring back the victim after taking copies of Voter ID card and Aadhaar card from them. Later, they learnt that the appellant had sold the victim woman in the ‘house of prostitution’. 15. Thereafter, the owner of the particular ‘brothel’ allowed them to bring back the victim after taking copies of Voter ID card and Aadhaar card from them. Later, they learnt that the appellant had sold the victim woman in the ‘house of prostitution’. 15. Hannan Ali Mullah deposed as PW-5, that in the year 2017, the victim woman informed her elder sister over phone that she was at Khalpar, Siliguri. Thereafter, he along with Abdul Rashid and the victim's husband went to Khalpar and found the victim woman in a prostitution centre. Thereafter, they brought back the victim and the victim's mother lodged the FIR. 16. Shahid Ali deposed as PW-6 that about 2-3 years back, one day while he was proceeding to the train station to board a train to Dimapur, he saw the victim woman sitting under a bridge. Thereafter, he boarded the train to Dimapur. He later heard that the victim woman eloped with some other man. He has also admitted that the police did not record his statement. 17. The victim's sister, (name withheld) deposed as PW-7 that about 4-5 years back when the victim went missing, her mother lodged the FIR with the police. 18. If the evidence of PW-1 is carefully scrutinized, she has not named the mystery woman who purchased her from the appellant. The overt act of the appellant in procuring the victim for immoral trafficking is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim was recovered from a prostitution centre, according to her husband, who according to PW-1 had to pay Rs. 2,70,000/- to the mystery woman, whereas on the contrary, her husband has not mentioned in his evidence that he had to pay Rs. 2,70,000/- to the mystery woman to purchase back his wife who was sold to the mystery woman. The failure of the prosecution to examine the mystery woman is a discrepancy in the evidence which extends a benefit of doubt to the appellant. As the victim's husband has not stated that he had to pay Rs. 2,70,000/- to the mystery woman, the evidence of PW-1 is not at all supported by the evidence of her husband who had recovered her from the Red-light establishment. 19. The other discrepancy in the evidence is that PW-1 has not stated that he brought his wife back from a prostitution centre. 2,70,000/- to the mystery woman, the evidence of PW-1 is not at all supported by the evidence of her husband who had recovered her from the Red-light establishment. 19. The other discrepancy in the evidence is that PW-1 has not stated that he brought his wife back from a prostitution centre. Another discrepancy which this case suffers from is that the FIR was lodged after a prolonged period. This inexplicable delay in lodging the FIR could not be explained or justified to the satisfaction of this Court. From the inception, the informant suspected that her daughter may have been kidnapped by the appellant and this has been stated by the informant as PW-2 that she has suspicions against the appellant and she lodged the FIR against him on strong suspicion that the appellant might have kidnapped her daughter. If she had strong suspicion against the appellant, the delay in lodging the FIR when the victim went missing has thus not been properly explained. The FIR lodged on 11.04.2017 starts with a prelude that the victim was found missing from her house. 20. Moreover, as the victim’s evidence was not found to be credible, her allegations that she was compelled into immoral traffic acts by the mystery woman is found to be unreliable. If this woman had purchased the victim illegally, she ought to have met the accused/appellant and if not, at least a witness. This woman neither met the accused nor a witness and thus, the evidence of the victim that she was compelled into prostitution has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the Investigating Officer’s evidence is taken into consideration, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant was involved in selling the victim to a woman from whom the victim was finally recovered by her husband and police. 21. S.I. Mukunda Das deposed as PW-8 that on 14.04.2017, he was working as an Attached Officer at Labdanguri Outpost when he was entrusted with the investigation of this case, registered as Gobardhana Police Station Case No. 106/2017 under Section 366 /370 of IPC. PW-8, Investigating Officer (IO for short) further deposed that he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. PW-8, Investigating Officer (IO for short) further deposed that he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The victim appeared in the Outpost and her statement was recorded and she was forwarded for medical examination and for recording her statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872 (CrPC for short). Thereafter, the victim was handed over to her family members. After interrogation of the appellant, he arrested him and forwarded him to custody. Meanwhile, he was transferred and he handed over the Case Diary to the Officer-In-Charge of Gobardhana Police Station. He has identified the signature of the Officer-In-Charge Paband Gayan as Exhibit P1(1)/PW1 in the FIR and the signature of I/C Labdanguri Outpost SI Siddik Ali Ahmed as Exhibit P4/PW8. The IO has also affirmed that PW-1 has not stated in her initial statement before him that when she asked the mystery woman that why the appellant had not returned, the woman had replied to her that the appellant had traded for her (PW-1). 22. These are the major contradictions elicited through the cross-examination of PW-1 vis-à-vis cross-examination of IO. 23. It is apt to mention at this juncture that this cross-examination under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act for short) qua 162 of CrPC has been totally ignored by the learned Trial Court. The major contradictions elicited through the cross-examination of the victim vis-à-vis the cross-examination of the IO has not been discussed in the evidence at all and the Trial Court went ahead to convict the appellant on the vacillating statements of the victim. 24. In addition, the other manifest error in the decision of the Trial Court is that the delay in lodgment of the FIR was totally ignored by the Court. The inexplicable delay of more than one month in lodgment of an FIR by a woman, who has a strong suspicion against the appellant, also extends a benefit of doubt. 25. PW-2 is the informant and her cross-examination also causes a dent in her evidence. She has admitted that she has lodged the FIR after one month of the incident but she did not know the contents of the FIR. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that her daughter did not narrate the details of the incident to her. 26. PW-2 is the informant and her cross-examination also causes a dent in her evidence. She has admitted that she has lodged the FIR after one month of the incident but she did not know the contents of the FIR. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that her daughter did not narrate the details of the incident to her. 26. The cross-examination of the victim’s husband also thwarts the evidence as he has admitted as PW-3 in cross-examination that when he went to Siliguri, he learnt that his wife did not go with the accused. He has further submitted in his cross-examination that he did not ask about the incident nor did his wife narrate the details of the incident to him. This exonerates the appellant. 27. The victim did not reveal the name of the mystery woman in the pretext that she had forgotten the name of the woman under whom she had taken shelter after she was allegedly abandoned by the appellant at Siliguri. 28. The IO has described the place of occurrence in the sketch map. The sketch map exhibited by the IO as Exhibit P-3(1)/PW8 appears to be of the neighbourhood of the victim’s matrimonial home. The house of PW-7, wife of Md. Jonab Ali, the house of the appellant and PW-3 is shown in the sketch map and marked as A and P.O. This shows that the first place of occurrence was shown in the sketch map whereas the second place of occurrence from where the victim was recovered was not shown in the sketch map nor did the IO mention in his deposition that the victim was found in a red light district. 29. Although, PW-4 and PW-5 have stated that they went with the victim’s husband to the red light district, the failure of the victim’s husband to mention that he recovered his wife from the red light district weakens the evidence of PW-4 and 5. 30. The evidence of the IO transpires that the investigation team did not recover the victim where she was held captive, after being sold to the mystery woman. This illegal deal between the appellant and the mystery woman was not acted upon by the police team. 30. The evidence of the IO transpires that the investigation team did not recover the victim where she was held captive, after being sold to the mystery woman. This illegal deal between the appellant and the mystery woman was not acted upon by the police team. When the appellant sold the victim for immoral traffic acts against her will, it was the duty of the investigating agency to proceed against the person who allegedly held the victim captive and compelled her to indulge in immoral traffic acts against her will. 31. Thus, it can be safely held that there is no evidence that the victim was held captive against her will by a woman as the woman was not made an accused nor a witness to substantiate the allegation of the victim against the appellant. The victim’s husband preferred not to implicate the appellant with the offence of trafficking for sexual exploitation of the person. 32. The evidence of Abdul Rashid Sonar as PW-4 and Hannan Ali Mullah as PW-5 can be termed as hearsay evidence as PW-4 heard that the appellant kidnapped the victim from the victim’s elder sister whereas PW-5 had not stated how he learnt about the abduction of the victim. The PW-4 has not named the victim’s sister. 33. It is true that the victim went with the appellant on her own volition and to prove an offence under Section 370 of IPC, consent is not necessary. However, an overt of trafficking the victim for sexual exploitation has not been proved against the appellant. Thus, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was kidnapped by the appellant with an intent to induce her to illicit intercourse, or with the motive to sell the victim for immoral trafficking. 34. The judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No. 129/2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 366 and 370 of IPC on benefit of doubt and is set at liberty forthwith. 35. The appellant to be released forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. 36. Appeal is allowed. 37. Send back the Trial Court Records.