Judgment:
B.D. Agarwal, J.
1. The appellant stands convicted Under Section 366 IPC vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Sessions Case No. 369(K) of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 5 years RI and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- with default sentence of 1 year RI. Being aggrieved with this conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred this appeal.
2. I have heard Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri P.C. Gayan, learned PP for the State. Also perused the impugned judgment and the prosecution evidence.
3. The prosecution case is that the victim girl was working at a PCO at Serabbhati at Guwahati. On 01.09.2005, while the victim girl was going home, she was allured by the appellant to get married and took her to Mumbai with an attempt to sell her to a prostitute home. However, nearly after a month, she escaped from the custody of the appellant and reached Guwahati on 26.92005 and lodged a written FIR at Paltan Bazar Police Station on 02.10.2005.
4. During the investigation, one Md. Tajmul Hoque was also arrested and he was challenged along with the present appellant. However, he has been acquitted by the impugned judgment. It is also necessary to mention here that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant from the offence Under Section 372 IPC, finding no evidence of using the victim girl for prostitution purposes.
5. From the impugned judgment, I find that the conviction has been basically recorded on the sole testimony of the victim girl. It is true that there is no legal bar to convict a person on the sole testimony of a victim woman provided her testimony is wholly reliable and beyond any criticism.
6. In the case before me, admittedly the victim girl was 22 years of old and she was a working woman. In absence of cogent corroborative evidence, victim's testimony ought to have been scrutinized by the learned Sessions Judge thoroughly, meticulously and with great care.
7. The victim woman was examined as PW-2. In her deposition, she has stated that after boarding a bus at Adabari to go home at Nalbari, she found the accused appellant, Kamal in the same bus. He was also accompanied by few other girls, who offer her sweet meal and thereafter, she lost her sense. Thereafter, she was brought to the railway station and boarded a train. The victim girl further deposed that she was taken to Mumbai and she was kept in the house of the brother-in-law of the appellant. It has also been alleged that the appellant had sold her in a prostitute home for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs.
8. As noted earlier, both the accused persons have been acquitted from the charge Under Section 372 IPC. I also find that the victim girl has failed to complete the story as to how she escaped from the prostitute's home. Bet that as it may, there are scores of self-contradictions and discrepancies in the victim's testimony, which are described below: 9. In the FIR, it was alleged that she was taken to Mumbai by the appellant after holding out a promise to marry her whereas in the testimony before the court, the victim has deposed that she was fraudulently taken to Mumbai by administering some poisonous food. Similarly in the FIR, it has been stated that she escaped from the prostitute's home and skillfully returned to Guwahati whereas in the court, the victim girl has deposed that she was assisted by the brother-in-law to board the train to return home. In her deposition, the victim girl has further stated that there was police patrol in the running train. However, there is no explanation as to why she did not report about her kidnapping to any police personnel or co-passenger although the victim girl traveled with the accused for about two days. I also find from the testimony of the victim girl that she was allowed by the accused appellant to talk to her mother and accordingly, she had the occasion to talk to her employer i.e. the PCO owner over phone, who did not indicate about her kidnapping or sexual abuse.
10. PW-1 is the mother of the victim girl. This witness has stated that after about a week of the alleged kidnapping, the victim girl had informed the PCO owner about her kidnapping by the appellant and that she was in a bad condition and needed to be rescued. However, PW-3, who is the adult son of the PCO owner, is totally silent about any talk in between the victim girl and his father, far less getting news of kidnapping. Rather, PW-3 has deposed that when the victim girl returned to Guwahati, she told them that she was taken away to Mumbai by some one. In other words, PW-3 has not named the appellant for committing the aforesaid offence.
11. The above apart, there is no explanation for inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. From the FIR, I find that the victim girl returned to Guwahati on 26.9.2005 and the FIR was lodged on 02.10.2005 only. It is true that the IO has admitted the fact that a missing information was given at the police station but no missing entry was produced in the court. There are many other discrepancies which I think not necessary to discuss inasmuch the contradictions and discrepancies noted hereinabove are enough to hold that the victim girl had voluntarily eloped with the appellant and she must have improved the story subsequently.
12. Considering all the aspects, I find sufficient merit and force in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. Since the appellant is in judicial custody, the registry is directed to issue release order forthwith.
13. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this appeal stands disposed of.