Back
2007 Supreme(Gau) 523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
A.B. Pal, J.
Pradip Kumar Deb alias Uttam Deb and Ors.
Vs.
State of Tripura
Decided On: 08.08.2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony and the circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants, along with the emphasis on the sensitivity and seriousness of dealing with cases of sexual crimes against women.
Headnote:
Rape - Minor Girl - Section 376(1), Section 376(2)(g) of IPC - Summary: The judgment discusses the conviction of the appellants for committing rape on a minor girl and the sentencing under Section 376(1) and Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasizes the importance of protecting the identity of the victim and highlights the evidence, witness testimonies, and legal principles related to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for raping a minor girl who was a maid servant in the house of the 1st appellant. The victim was raped by the 1st appellant and later gang-raped by the other appellants. The victim's mother lodged the FIR about a week after the last crime of gang rape was committed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim's and her mother's testimonies credible and consistent, and the circumstantial evidence supported their claims. The court also noted the absence of the medical report of the victim and the change in statements of non-official witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the absence of the medical report, and the change in statements of non-official witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's consistent testimony and the circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also emphasized the importance of protecting the identity of the victim and the need for sensitivity in dealing with cases of sexual crimes against women.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, acquitting three appellants and upholding the conviction of the 1st appellant and another appellant. The court imposed specific sentences and fines, directing the amount of fine to be paid to the victim for her rehabilitation.
A.B. Pal, J.
1. The five appellants herein have been convicted for committing rape on a minor girl and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. While the 1st appellant-Pradip Kumar Deb has been found guilty of committing rape, an offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), the other four appellants, namely, Sri Dharamjit Nath, Kantu Nath, Banamali Malakar and Amar Malakar have been guilty of committing gang rape punishable under Section376(2)(g) of I.P.C. By this appeal they have assailed the judgment dated 16-2-2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in ST 32 (NT/D) of 1999 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
2. The victim was only 10 years' old when she was allegedly raped in the month of July, 1997. Though during investigation and trial her name has been disclosed ignoring the mandate of Section228-A of I.P.C, I do not propose to disclose her identity again in this judgment keeping in mind the observation of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Putta Raja in 2004 CriLJ 579. The observation of the Apex Court appearing in para 3 of the said judgment is gainfully quoted below (para 2):
We do not propose to mention the name of the victim. Section 228-A of I.P.C. makes disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences punishable. True it is, restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by High Court, or also lower Court.
But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim of sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgment, be it this Court. High Court or lower Court, the name of victim should not be indicated. We have chosen to describe her as victim in this judgment.
I may only hope that all the trial Courts shall in future go by the above principle in letter spirit, by not disclosing the name and other particulars of the victim of sexual offence in the judgment.
3. The victim was admittedly a maid servant in the house of the 1st appellant-Pradip Kumar Deb, engaged two months before the occurrence. She came from a poor family with her father expired during her early childhood. During the absence of Asha Rani Deb (P.W. 7). the wife of the 1st appellant, in the last week of July, 1997 when she went to her parents' house at Silchar, the said appellant had taken the opportunity to ravish the victim who was alone and helpless in his house. He committed rape on her more than once during the period 26-7-1997 to 28-7-1997. He threatened her that discloser of the occurrence to her mot her or anybody else would compel him to kill her. The victim child, frightened as she was, did not dare to go to her mother and tell her about the heinous offence perpetrated on her by her own master of her father's age.
Her tragedy did not end there. More was waiting to invade and destroy her yet-to-blossom womanhood. On 30-7-1997 in the evening her master dropped her in the house of the 2nd and 3rd appellant-Sri Dharmajit Nath and Sri Kantu Nath, who are full blood brothers. They were close neighbours of the 1st appellant. In that house she was first raped by Banamali Malakar, the 4th appellant herein, followed by Amar Malakar, Dharmajit Nath and Kantu Nath one after the other committing thereby the alleged offence of gang rape. The victim bled profusely and fainted.
On 2nd August, 1997 Asha Rani (P.W. 7) returned home and noticed fresh and old bloods in the wearing apparel of the victim. Though the child refused to disclose initially, for the apparent reason of fear, Asha Rani suspected that the blood could not be due to menstruation at the age of ten and the girl might have been sexually abused. She went to victim's mother (P.W, 1) Smt. Renubala Deb and apprised her of when she had noticed. The shocked
