Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 December, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                          Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010161862024




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:16950

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.A./255/2024

            MD. MAKHAN ALI AND ANR.
            S/O LT NUR ALI,
            VILL.- NO. 2 GARUAJHAR, MOULABI BASTI, P.S.- PANERY, DIST.-
            UDALGURI, ASSAM.

            2: MD. BADSHA ALI
             S/O LT MOFIZ ALI

            VILL.- NO. 1 GARUAJHAR
            P.S.- PANERY
            DIST.- UDALGURI
            ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REP. BY P.P., ASSAM.

            2:ELIZA BEGUM @ RANJU
             D/O EYAD ALI

            VILL.- NO. 2 DURGARGAON
            P.O.- TAMULPUR
            P.S.- TAMULPUR
            DIST.- BAKSA
            ASSAM
            PIN- 781367

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N UDDIN, MR S K CHHETRY,MR. M R CHOUDHURY,MR.
M ISLAM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, AMICUS CURIAE(R-2)
                                                   Page No.# 2/7




Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/749/2024

MD. MAKHAN ALI AND ANR
S/O LT NUR ALI
VILL.- NO. 2 GARUAJHAR
MOULABI BASTI
P.S.- PANERY
DIST.- UDALGURI
ASSAM.

2: MD. BADSHA ALI
S/O LT MOFIZ ALI

VILL.- NO. 1 GARUAJHAR
P.S.- PANERY
DIST.- UDALGURI
ASSAM.
VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY P.P.
ASSAM.

2:ELIZA BEGUM @ RANJU
D/O EYAD ALI

VILL.- NO. 2 DURGARGAON
P.O.- TAMULPUR
P.S.- TAMULPUR
DIST.- BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN- 781367.
------------

Advocate for : MR. N UDDIN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Page No.# 3/7

:: BEFORE ::

(HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA)

Advocate(s) for the Appellant : Mr. N. Uddin, Advocate.

Advocate(s) for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. P. Borthakur, Addl. P.P., Assam.

Advocate(s) for the Respondent No.2 : Mrs. M.K. Brown, Amicus Curiae.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 12.08.2025. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.12.2025.

            Whether the pronouncement is of the
            operative part of the judgment?        :         YES.
            Whether the full judgment has been
            pronounced?                                :     YES.


                          JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutors, Assam as well Ms. M.K. Brown, the learned Amicus Curiae representing Respondent No.2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 415 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 and 24.06.2024 respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam in Sessions Case (II) No.08/2021 is put to challenge.

3. One day in the year 2010, the informant lady (PW-1) had gone to the residence of her uncle Md. Hussain Khan at Kalikhola. She met the present two appellants. They induced her to go to Barpeta where her another uncle resided. But she was taken to Page No.# 4/7

Delhi. Both the appellants sold her at a price of ₹50,000/-. At that time, she was only 11 years old. Initially, she was employed there as a maid in a household. After that, a man from Haryana called Pradip Saharan married her. After about 5/6 years, she became the mother of two sons. On 27.05.2018, she returned to Assam and on 30.08.2018, she reached her home at North Kalikhola.

4. After expiry of so many years, the PW-1 had lodged the FIR before police alleging the aforesaid facts.

5. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial court framed the charge under Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code.

6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution side examined 9 witnesses in order to prove the offence against the appellants. The appellants did not examine any witness. Ultimately, the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code.

7. I have gone through the prosecution evidence.

8. In her evidence, the PW-1 has narrated the facts as mentioned in the FIR. In her cross-examination she has stated that she fled from Delhi and came to Assam and lodged the FIR.

9. The second prosecution witness is Md. Jainuddin Ali (PW-2). He has stated in his evidence that the victim girl returned home after 10/12 years. He has stated that after her arrival, there was a village meeting and in that meeting the girl has disclosed that the appellant Makhan Ali had taken her to New Delhi.

10. The third prosecution witness is Md. Ajahar Islam (PW-3). He stated that he knew nothing about the occurrence.

11. The fourth prosecution witness is Md. Kasim Ali (PW-4). He had heard that about 12/13 years ago the appellants had taken one girl from his village and sold at Delhi. On her return after 12/13 years later, a village panchayat was held. This witness heard Page No.# 5/7

that the present two appellants were involved in trafficking the girl.

12. The fifth prosecution witness had heard that about 15 years ago the PW-1 was taken to Delhi and she was sold there.

13. The sixth prosecution witness is Md. Hussain Khan (PW-6). He is the uncle of PW-1. He knows the appellants. Hussain Khan has stated in his evidence that about 9/10 years ago, PW-1 was missing and after 9 years she returned home and narrated before the villagers that the appellant Badsha Ali had taken her to another State and sold her there.

14. In his cross-examination, Hussain Khan has stated that when the girl disappeared, no FIR was lodged by her family members.

15. The seventh prosecution witness (PW-7) knew nothing about the occurrence.

16. The eight prosecution witness (PW-8) is a police officer. His predecessor S.I. Sukumar Talukdar (not examined in this case as he expired) had investigated the case and also filed the charge sheet.

17. The ninth prosecution witness is another police officer. When PW-1 had lodged the FIR on 31.05.2018, he was working as an Officer-in-Charge of Tengeri Police Station. He partly investigated the case and examined some witnesses after registering the case. At that time, he was transferred and he had handed over the charge to his successor.

18. After going through the prosecution evidence, it is clear that PW-1 is the only eye witness to the occurrence. Her parents were never examined in this case. Her parents had never lodged any FIR when she initially disappeared from her house.

19. Now, the question arises whether the evidence of PW-1 can be held sacrosanct in order to convict the appellants?

20. She returned home after 8/9 years and narrated the story to the villagers and lodged the FIR before police. There are no other witnesses except the victim girl to Page No.# 6/7

support her claim that she was kidnapped and sold at Delhi. Her parents never lodged any FIR before police.

21. At this stage, a brief visit to Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would be fruitful, same is quoted as under:

"(1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation, (a) recruits, (b) transports, ( c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons, by--

1. using threats, or

2. using force, or any other form of coercion, or

3. by abduction, or

4. by practising fraud, or deception, or

5. by abuse of power, or

6. by inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits, in order to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received, commits the offence of trafficking."

22. There is no evidence in this case to suggest that the appellants have ever threatened, used force or any other form of coercion etc. or fraud and deception to take the 11 years old girl to Delhi. These are the elements that required to prove an offence under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code. In her evidence she has stated that she was given in marriage to a man from Haryana and she gave birth to two sons. She never claimed that she was ever sexually abused by any of the appellants. Marriage of a girl with a man can never be termed as sexual exploitation. Now, the girl is about 28 years old. But there is no evidence in this case to show that she was given in marriage while she was a minor.

23. In a criminal case, an offence against an accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no evidence in this case to support the claim of PW-1 nor there is any evidence to prove that PW-1 was sexually exploited. There is also no Page No.# 7/7

evidence in this case to prove that the PW-1 was given in marriage while she was a minor. Her marriage to the man from Haryana can never be termed as an act of sexual exploitation.

24. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has erroneously oriented itself and arrived at an incorrect finding. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.

25. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 and 24.06.2024 respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam in Sessions Case (II) No.08/2021 is set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted from this case. If the appellants Md. Makhan Ali and Md. Badsha Ali are still in judicial custody, they shall be set at liberty forthwith.

The instant criminal appeal as well as the connected IA(Crl.) No.749/2024 are disposed of accordingly.

Send back the TCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant