Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.
Gautam Goyari, Son of late Deepak Kr. Gurung – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Opposite-Party
Crl. A. No. 78(J) of 2017
Decided On : 25-06-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. A. K. Gupta, Amicus Curiae Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. D. Das, Addl. P.P., Assam.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the victim's age and the nature of the accused's actions in determining the appropriate legal provisions and sentencing.
Headnote:
Sexual Assault - Criminal Law - IPC Section 376/511
Fact of the Case:
The accused attempted to rape a minor girl, causing injuries, and was convicted under IPC Section 376(2)(f)/511. The victim's testimony, medical evidence, and corroborating witness statements supported the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of attempted rape under IPC Section 376(2)(f)/511 based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements.
Issues: The key issues were the age of the victim, credibility of the victim's testimony, and the nature of the accused's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements to establish the accused's guilt under IPC Section 376(2)(f)/511.
Final Decision: The accused's conviction was modified to IPC Section 376(1) due to the victim's age, and the accused was sentenced to the period already undergone and a reduced fine.
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Assam.
2. The informant Ranju Devi lodged an ejahar/FIR before the I/c, Namtola P.S. alleging inter alia that on 18.05.2012 at about 4.00 P.M., sister of accused namely Jyoti called her daughter/victim to play carom with her. After sometime Jyoti left the place to go toilet and the accused, who was sleeping at that time woke up and tried to rape her daughter by removing her apparels. The accused had caused scratched injuries on the neck of the victim.
3. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR on 19.05.2012, by the In-charge, it was registered as Namtola P.S. Case No.21/2012 under Section376/511 of IPC.
4. During the course of investigation, the victim girl was medically examined by the doctor. The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of CrPC as well as the statements of the other witnesses were also recorded u/s 161 of CrPC. The Police on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet in the against the accused, Gautam Gayari under Section 376/511 of vide Sessions Case No. 115(S-C)/2012 arising out of G.R. Case No.259/2012.
5. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Charideo, committed the case to the learned Court of Sessions, Charideo for trial.
6. The learned Court below considered the records and the documents therewith. Accordingly, the charges were framed against the accused under Section 376/511 of IPC to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and instead face the trial.
7. In course of the trial, prosecution examined as many as 4(four) witnesses including the victim, mother of victim/informant of the case, the Medical Officer and the I.O, whereas the defence had declined to adduce evidence on it part. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 of CrPC, wherein the accused had thwarted all incriminating evidence that has been thrust against him.
8. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Court finds and hold the accused guilty u/s. 376(2)(f)/511 of IPC and convicted the accused person Gautam Gayari under section 376(2))f)/511 of IPC and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand), in-default of payment of fine, to suffer further R/I for 6(six) months.
9. That apart, the learned Court directed to award compensation to the victim girl to be paid by the Secretary District Legal Service Authority, Jorhat. The said amount shall be used by the mother of the victim for her welfare and rehabilitation of the child.
10. As against the aforesaid order of conviction the present appeal has been preferred by the accused from the jail.
11. The learned Amicus Curiae Mr. AK Gupta submitted that that the testimony of the victim cannot be wholly relied to rest the conviction as no independent eye witness has been examined despite the fact that some other person was present at the place of occurrence. Moreover, the victim girl was not under 12 years of age at the time of occurrence hence the evidence falls short to prove the offence u/s 376(2)(f)/ 511 of the IPC; rather, the other offence u/s 354 of the IPC may be attracted.
12. On the other hand, according to the learned Addl. P.P. there is no infirmity in the aforesaid order and conviction and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of victim. No any interference in the impugned judgment and order and is called for. Let us examine the evidence on records which is as follows.
13. The victim girl/P.W-3 (name withheld) has stated she was studying in Class-VIII and her dated of birth was 24.12.1999. The incident occurred in the month of May, 2012 at about 4.00 PM. The sister of the accused namely, Jyoti called her to play carom with her. After playing carom, Jyoti went to toilet. While she was waiting for Jyoti to return at that time a boy namely Panku was with her. The
