2012 Supreme(Gau) 770
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.K.Musahary, J.
Bhaben Nath, S/O- Late Jogen Nath, Village- Gegengaguri, P.S.- Dhekiajuli, District- Sonitpur, Assam -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam -Resopndent
Crl. Appeal No. 224/2003
Decided On : 22-06-2012
For the Appellant :Smti Rita Devi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smti A. Begum, Public Prosecutor, Assam
The court emphasized the importance of evidence in rape cases and the need for a strong basis for conviction under relevant sections of the IPC.
Headnote:
IPC - Rape - 448/342/376/511 - The court examined the evidence of the victim girl and the medical report, concluding that there was no evidence suggesting rape and the accused's conviction under Section 376 IPC was set aside. The conviction under Section 448 IPC was also set aside due to lack of strong basis, but the conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC were upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 448/342/376 IPC for trespass, confinement, and attempted rape. The victim's evidence and medical report led to the court setting aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC and the lack of strong basis led to setting aside the conviction under Section 448 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC were upheld.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence suggesting rape and set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC. The lack of strong basis led to setting aside the conviction under Section 448 IPC, but the conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC were upheld.
Issues: The key issues were the evidence of rape, trespass, and confinement, and the interpretation of the medical report.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of the victim girl and the medical report were crucial in determining the lack of evidence suggesting rape and the lack of strong basis for the conviction under Section 448 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC were set aside, the conviction under Section 448 IPC was set aside, and the conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC were upheld with a modification in the sentence.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.05.2003, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, in GR Case No.996/2001, convicting under Section 448/342/376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 (three) years and also to pay fine of Rs, 1,000/- only, in default to undergo RI for another 3 (three) months under Section 376 R/W Section 511 IPC to undergo imprisonment for 3 (three) months and also fine of Rs.500/- only, in default to undergo for another 1 (one) month under Section 448 IPC and further to undergo imprisonment for 3 (three) months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- only, in default to undergo RI for another 1 (one) month under Section 342 IPC, which would run simultaneously.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case, is that on 28.07.2001, at about 11 a.m., taking advantage of the absence of parents, the accused committed trespass into the house of the informant and kidnapped his first daughter Anju Rani (real name withheld) and kept her confined, in his house. The victim’s father, Shri Nirmal Nath, lodged the FIR, with the local Police and a case being Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 139/2001, was registered under Section 448/342/376/511 IPC. On completion of the investigation, the I/O, submitted charge-sheet against the accused under the aforesaid Sections of law. On committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused under the aforesaid Sections of law. The charge being read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses including the victim girl and the Medical Officer. The accused examined none in his defence and the learned trial Court, on consideration of the materials and evidence on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused, as mentioned earlier.
5. The most serious offence, alleged against the appellant, is the offence under Section 376 IPC. In my considered view, without going into the other details of the offence, it is necessary to examine whether there are sufficient materials and evidence on record, substantiating the allegation/charge of rape within the meaning of 376 IPC. For this purpose, the Court has to examine and appreciate the evidence of the victim girl.
6. In this case, the victim was examined as PW-7. In her deposition, she has stated, amongst other, that in the absence of her parents, the accused entered her house and forcibly dragged her to his house, in presence of the younger sister. The victim was confined in the house of the accused and thereafter he forcibly stripped off her wearing garments including her underwear and started bitting her cheeks and squeezing her breast. She gave vivid narration how the accused outraged her modesty. To put them in her own words:-
“……………Accused Bhaben Nath dragged me to the next house i.e. house of Bhupen Nath, elder brother of the accused and dragged me through the Jika cultivation of the accused and took me inside his house. Thereafter accused bolted the door from inside the house. Thereafter accused forcibly stripped off my wearing garments including my underwear and started bitting my cheeks and squeezed my breast. Accused forcibly took off my underwear and made an attempt to commit rape on me. Being scared I beseeched the accused not to rape me and agreed to put vermillion on my forehead so that he would not damage my chastity. The accused being assured got his finger cut and put blood on my forehead. Accused wanted confirmation from me whether I would stay with him or not, and told me that if I do not agree to stay with him he would administer poisonous substance to me which was carrying with him. I pretended that I would fulfill his wishes and therefore accused did not administer that poisonous substance ‘Furand’ on me. After sometime