Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010211162015 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./152/2015 MD. MOMIN ALI @ MAMIN ALI S/O- MD. HANIF ALI, R/O VILL.- DIASINGIRI, P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR 2:MD. SIRAJ ALI S/O- LT. ALIULLAH SHEIKH R/O- DIASINGIRI P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D CHAKRABARTY, MR.P KATAKI Advocate for the Respondent : MR.H KALITAR-2, MR.H DAS(R-2),PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 02.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Baishya, learned A.P.P for the State of Assam and Mr. H Das, learned Page No.# 2/8 counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed u/s 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C 1973. By this Revision Petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Bajali, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2011 by which the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge, Barpeta vide judgment and order dated 02.07.2011 in Sessions Case No. 69/2010, was confirmed. 3. By the said judgment and order dated 02.07.2011, the petitioner was convicted u/s 365 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in the default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3(three) months. It is this judgment and order, both in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2011, are challenged by the petitioner in the instant Revision Petition. 4. Facts : An FIR was lodged by the father of the victim namely Siraj Ali stating, inter alia, that at around 12’o clock in the noon on 23.02.2009, when his daughter, i.e. the victim, was returning home from Nityananda Market, she was forcefully taken away from the road by the petitioner and was confined in his house where she was crying helplessly and was also threatened by the petitioner that he would kill her. The informant lodged the ejahar to save his daughter from being killed. 5. The police investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner u/s 342/366 of IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioner by the Ld. Court of Sessions Judge, Bajali, Barpeta u/s 342/366 of IPC which was explained to the petitioner, to which he Page No.# 3/8 pleaded not guilty. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined 7(seven) witnesses including the Doctor and the I/o. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and in defence, the petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and another witness as DW-2. 7. Evidence : PW-1- The Doctor, in his evidence, stated that he examined the victim on 24.02.2009 and found one abration over her forehead and also tenderness over her neck. 8. In his cross-examination, he stated that injury, sustained by the victim, could also have been caused by falling on hard substance. 9. PW-2: the informant i.e. the father of the victim, stated that he got a phone call and came to know that while his daughter was returning home with one Smt. Alpana Begum and had reached near the house of the petitioner, the petitioner forcibly took her inside his home. On getting this information, he immediately lodged the ejahar and returned to his village with police personnel and that he saw his daughter being kept confined in a room under lock and key in the house of the petitioner and that the police recovered his daughter by breaking open the lock and at that juncture, the petitioner fled away from his house. 10. In his cross-examination, he stated that he got the information over telephone from one Liak Ali. 11. The victim, Smt. Minu Begum, was examined as PW-3 and she stated that while she was coming home with her friend Smt. Alpana Begum and reached the house of the petitioner, the petitioner came out of his house, held the handle of her bicycle and forcibly took her inside his house and by keeping her inside, on his bed, physically assaulted her. Page No.# 4/8 She also stated that her friend Alpana attempted to follow her but the accused drove her away and that Alpana informed her matter to her family members. She further stated that her mother and other ladies of the locality went to the house of the petitioner and demanded to return her back to which the petitioner declined and that he physically assaulted her mother. She further stated that upon arrival of the police, the brother- in-law of the petitioner broke the lock and she was set free. 12. In her cross-examination, she, however, denied of any love relationship with the petitioner. 13. Smt. Alpana Begum, who accompanied the victim and reached the house of the petitioner, was examined as PW-4 and she stated that when they reached the house of the petitioner, the petitioner suddenly came in front of them and after holding the bicycle, took the victim into his house and that she attempted to follow, but the petitioner drove her away and that later, she informed the family members of the victim. 14. The mother of the victim was examined as PW-5 and she, in her evidence, had stated that PW-4 had informed the matter to her and she, in turn, informed her husband. She further informed that she, along with Liak Ali, went to the house of the accused and demanded her return, but she was not allowed and she was also assaulted. 15. In her cross-examination, she too declined any love relationship between her daughter with the petitioner. 16. PW-6 is an independent witness who stated that he came to know from his daughter that the petitioner had kidnapped the victim from the road and that police had recovered the victim from the house of the Page No.# 5/8 petitioner. 17. The I/O was examined as PW-7, who recorded the statement of the witnesses, the victim and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet. He seized one bicycle and a pair of shoes of the victim. 18. These are the prosecution evidence after which the petitioner was examined u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C, wherein, he had stated that he and the victim had a love relationship. The petitioner further examined as DW- 1, wherein, he reiterated that he had love relationship with the victim and had exchanged love letters. 19. Apart from the petitioner, one Asma Begum was examined as DW-2 who stated that the victim and the petitioner had a love affair from childhood and that she and another friend used to deliver love letters to the petitioner. 20. On the basis of the above evidence, the Ld. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had abducted the victim against her will. However, the Ld. Trial Court, holding that simple abduction will not come under the purview of Section 366, converted the offence to u/s 365 of IPC and convicted the appellant under the said Section i.e. Section 365 of IPC and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. The Ld. Trial Court further held that charge u/s 365 of IPC was not framed, however, since it was stated to be a lesser offence, then Section 366 of IPC, conviction and sentence was awarded. 21. Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 365 of IPC is not attracted in the instant case. He placed Section 365 IPC which quoted, as under : Page No.# 6/8 “365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 22. He submits that in order to bring a case u/s 365 of IPC, the abduction has to be secret and confinement has to be wrongful. On the basis of the evidence, he submits that Smt. Alpana Begum, PW-4, who was accompanying the victim, had seen the victim going inside the house of the petitioner. She had categorically stated that the petitioner came out of his house, held her bicycle and took the victim inside his house. The victim also stated in her statement that she was accompanying Smt. Alpana Begum towards her house and when she reached the house of the petitioner, the petitioner took her inside his house and she was kept there. Said Smt. Alpana Begum had also informed the place of confinement of the victim to the mother of the victim and the mother had gone to the house of the petitioner and asked for the return of her daughter. As such, there was no secret element in keeping the girl in the house of the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned judgment and order requires interference as Section 365 of IPC is not attracted. 23. Per contra, Mr. K Baishya, learned A.P.P for the State of Assam submits that u/s 365 of IPC, the requirement is that the accused person should abduct the victim secretly and should keep in a wrongful confinement and that in the instant case, the accused person suddenly came in front of the victim while she was on the road and took her inside his house. The learned A.P.P further states that the offence of abduction and wrongful confinement is attracted in the instant case. Page No.# 7/8 24. Analysis x Conclusion : It is noticed from the evidence of the victim, where she had stated clearly that while she was returning home and had reached the house of the petitioner, the petitioner suddenly came out of his house and after holding the handle of her bicycle, forcefully took her inside his house. It is also in the statement of the victim that PW-4 Smt. Alpana Begum wanted to follow her inside the house of the petitioner but the petitioner did not allow her to come and that PW-4 went to inform the matter to her mother and that thereafter, villagers came to the residence of the petitioner and demanded her return but the petitioner declined and assaulted her mother. She also stated that her father came with police to the said place and when the brother-in-law of the petitioner opened the room, she came out of the same. 25. PW-4, in her evidence, had substantiated the statement of the victim in as much as she stated that she was with the victim and that the petitioner took the victim inside his house from the road at noon and that she also wanted to follow the victim but the petitioner drove her out and that she went and informed the matter to the victim’s family. The mother of the victim has also corroborated the statement of the PW-4 to the effect that PW-4 went and informed her about the petitioner taking the victim inside his house. 26. Further, it is no res integra that the evidence of the defence should be given equal importance as the evidence of the prosecution. DW-2 had stated that the petitioner and the victim had a love relationship and that she used to deliver love letters to the petitioner. 27. In view of the said statements on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that ingredients of Section 365 of IPC is not present, in as much as the petitioner had taken the victim openly from the road to Page No.# 8/8 his house in presence of PW-4 who was driven out therefrom and in whose information, the mother of the victim along with others, including the police and the father of the victim, reached the house of the petitioner and recovered the victim from there. 28. Accordingly, the offence u/s 365 of IPC is not attracted in the instant case. Accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted of the charges u/s 365 of IPC. The judgment and order dated 02.07.2011 passed by the Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge, Bajali, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 69/2010 convicting the petitioner u/s 365 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years with fine default stipulation is interfered with. Further, the appellate order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Ld. Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bajali, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No. 22/2011 upholding the judgment and order of the Ld. Assistant Sessions Judge, Bajali, Barpeta is also interfered with. Both the judgments are set aside and quashed. 29. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other cases. 30. Send back the T.C.R. 31. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant