GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 17 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 17:

1. Heard Mr. B M Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Ms. A Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

2. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 38/1012 arising out of G.R. Case No. 903/2010, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 372/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each, and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 (six) months.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant (PW-1), father of the victim girl, lodged an FIR on 25.08.2010 alleging, inter alia, that the accused appellant No. 1 took his daughter, aged about 15 years, to Bhakatpara on 14.08.2010 at about 8 AM and thereafter, she did not return. It was further alleged that on 22.08.2010, though the accused appellant No. 1 had returned back, however, the victim girl did not return. Upon enquiring, the informant came to know that the accused appellants took his daughter to Delhi by inducing her and sold her to unknown persons for prostitution.

4. Accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 372/34 IPC. Upon completion of investigation of the case, police submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections and thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 372/34 IPC and the accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, including the Investigating Officer of the case. However the victim girl was not examined.

6. After completion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellants. Situated thus, the present appeal has been preferred.

7. Mr. B M Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants submits that no offence under Section 372 IPC is made out, in as much as, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the victim was below the age of 18 years and that she was sold for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse. He further submits that no eye witness to the alleged taking or sale was also examined. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Himachal High Court in the case of Lal Singh -Vs- State reported in 1994 Criminal L.J. 859.

8. Per contra, Ms. A Begum, learned APP, Assam vehemently objecting to the instant criminal appeal submits that the learned Trial Court has convicted the accused appellants under the aforesaid sections of law based on evidence and sound reasoning.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9cN8Q56EAE05yaoqqx0nBJIEBP6Thb7jaoSgENVv7%2BVU&caseno=Crl.A./224/2014&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010226152014&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.