Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 21 May, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010224452021
2025:GAU-AS:6350
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./220/2021
MD. SULTAN ALI
S/O- ABDUL KHALEK, VILL.- AMULA PAM, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM
2:SMTI MARIOM LAKRA
W/O- SRI PITAR LAKRA
VILL.- PUNG PANI
P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BARUAH, MR. A CHAUDHURY,MR. P K DAS,MR. N
MAHAJAN,MR. D BORA,MR. A SARMAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
:: PRESENT ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Mr. N. Mahajan,
Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. B. Sarma,
Addl. P.P., Assam.
Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025.
Date of Judgment : 21.05.2025.
Page No.# 2/5
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No.172 of 2019. The appellant was convicted
under Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- with default
stipulations.
3. An FIR was lodged before police stating that the appellant Sultan Ali claiming to
be a resident of Amolapam village near Napam Central University, became acquainted
with the informant Mariyam Lakra. The appellant allegedly told the informant that he
will keep her 11 year old daughter Minali Lakra in his house and provide school
education to her. Accordingly, Mariyam Lakra handed over her daughter to the
appellant. After that, Mariyam Lakra used to call the appellant over telephone but he
never gave the telephone to her daughter to talk to her mother. Mariyam Lakra started
to develop suspicion. One day, she went to Amolapam village in search of the
appellant. The father of the appellant told Mariyam Lakra that the appellant had
shifted his house to a rented accommodation at Poroua village and in that house, her
daughter does not stay with the appellant. Thereafter, Mariyam Lakra came to know
that the appellant along with another person called Saidul Islam had sold her
daughter.
4. Police registered the case being Tezpur P.S. Case No.739 of 2018 under Section
420 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code.
5. During investigation, the victim girl Minali Lakra was recovered by police. She
gave statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. The victim girl told the
Page No.# 3/5
Magistrate that the appellant had taken her to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. He
took her in the house of his maternal grandmother. She was given the job of domestic
help. There she was beaten up by unknown boy. She has stated that Sultan took her
to Arunachal Pradesh on a promise that she will be sent to a school there. Thereafter,
one day, one of her relative brought her back home.
6. On conclusion of investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the present
appellant.
7. During the trial, prosecution examined 6 witnesses in order to prove the offences
against the appellant. On the evidence on record, the trial court arrived at the
impugned finding.
8. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as the evidence.
9. The first prosecution witness to be examined is Mariyam Lakra. She has stated,
inter alia, that she suspected that her daughter was handed over to an unknown
person at Arunachal Pradesh for working as a domestic help. The witness had told
that after recovery of her daughter, she told her that she was engaged as a domestic
help in the house of an unknown person in Arunachal Pradesh.
10. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of her evidence.
11. The second prosecution witness is Smti. Basanti Das. She is the sister-in-law of
Mariyam Lakra. So, the victim girl is her niece. Her evidence is based on whatever she
had learnt from Mariyam Lakra. She has quoted the victim girl as saying to her that
the appellant had sold her in Arunachal Pradesh for a price of ₹50,000/-. She said that
the appellant also admitted the fact before her.
12. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of her evidence.
13. The third prosecution witness is Semual Sanga. He is a neighbour of Mariyam
Lakra. According to this witness, the appellant once told Mariyam Lakra that an
employee of Tezpur University was looking for a maid to look after his child and that
Page No.# 4/5
employee shall also send her to school. The witness stated that accordingly, the
daughter of the informant was taken away. The witness Semual Sanga has stated that
Mariyam Lakra was anxious as to whether her daughter was actually admitted in a
school. She tried to contact the appellant but failed. This witness has claimed that he
subsequently came to know that the appellant had sold the girl at a price of
₹50,000/-.
14. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of her evidence.
15. The fourth prosecution witness is the victim girl. She has stated in her evidence
that she was taken to Arunachal Pradesh and kept her in the house of fan unknown
person. She claims that she was not admitted in any school. The witness has stated
that one of the members of the family told her that she was bought at a price of
₹50,000/-. She has stated that initially she was taken to Bandardewa by the appellant
and thereafter she was taken to Itanagar by an unknown person and that unknown
person brought her to Borghat Police Station. Thereafter, police produced her before a
Magistrate for recording her statement.
16. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of her evidence.
17. The fifth prosecution witness is the maternal grandfather of the victim girl. Her
evidence is similar to the informant Mariyam Lakra. He stated in his evidence that the
appellant had sold his granddaughter at Arunachal Pradesh at a price of ₹50,000/-.
18. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of his evidence.
19. The sixth prosecution witness is the police investigating officer. He spoke about
the investigation. He has stated that the victim girl was left alone on the road near
Borghat Police Out Post and fromthere, the girl was produced before a Magistrate.
20. There is nothing material in the cross-examination portion of his evidence.
21. The seventh prosecution witness is the Bench Assistant of the court of the
Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom the victim girl gave the statement. He took
Page No.# 5/5
the signature/thumb impression of the girl.
22. From the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the fact that the
victim girl was sold by the appellant at Arunachal Pradesh is proved beyond all
reasonable doubt. The appellant has miserably failed to discredit or impeach the
prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court has correctly appreciated the
prosecution evidence and arrived at a correct finding.
23. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of
merit and therefore, stands dismissed accordingly.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
