1. By the impugned judgment and order, dated 12.4.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions Case No. 40/2003, the accused-appellant stands convicted under section, 376, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 20,000 and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months with further direction that the fine, if realized, be given to the victim.

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described, thus: The accused, Jasimuddin, being a tutor of the victim LB, was a visitor to the house, where LB used to live with her two sisters and parents. Because of the proximity, which the accused enjoyed with the family of LB, a love affair developed between the two. In course of time, the accused promised LB that he would marry her and with this promise of marriage, he induced her to cohabit with him. Their cohabitation caused LB's pregnancy. LB disclosed her pregnancy to the accused and the accused promised that he would marry her. However, despite the promise so made, the accused did not marry LB; rather, after about two months, he gave to LB some medicines for the purpose of causing abortion, bat LB did not take the medicines. Out of embarrassment and also because of the fact that the accused had told LB not to disclose their affair and her pregnancy to anyone, LB did not, for quite some time, disclose her pregnancy to anyone. When, however, the accused did not marry her, she informed the matter to her mother, who, in turn, informed to her husband. Thereafter, a village 'bichar' (i.e., sitting of elders for settlement of disputes) was called in the village. In the 'bichar', so held, the accused admitted his illicit relation with LB and also assured the people present there that he would marry LB, but instead of marrying LB, the accused fled away. LB, then, lodged a written FIR. Based on this FIR, police registered a case against the accused and, on completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against the accused under sections 376/493, IPC showing the accused as absconder.

3. After the accused was arrested, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. To the charges framed, at the trial under sections 376 and 417, IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, prosecution examined six witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under section 313, Cr.PC and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. Having held the accused guilty of the offence committed under section 376, IPC, the learned trial court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as hereinabove mentioned. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused has a preferred this appeal, pivot

4. I have heard Mr. P Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

5. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be noted is that " the evidence of LB (PW1) is the pivot around which revolves the entire case of the prosecution. When I scrutinize the evidence of 'LB (PW1), 1 notice that according to her evidence, the accused was her private tutor, he was a frequent visitor to her house and, gradually, they developed affinity towards each other, the accused promised to marry her and, on the basis of such a promise, the accused induced her (PW1) to cohabit with him and this cohabitation continued for about a year. The cohabitation between them, according to the evidence of PW1, made her pregnant and when she disclosed to the accused the fact that she had become pregnant, the accused promised that he would marry her immediately, but instead of marrying her, the accused, after about two months, brought some medic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document