Point of Law : The chastity of a woman ruined as soon as such offence is committed, while in a civilized society, respect or reputation is a basic right. No member of society can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable but also deplorable. Youthful excitement and an attempt for momentary pleasure on the part of a person upon a woman, had a devastating effect in the entire body and mind of the victim. It is to be kept in mind that such offence lowers the dignity of a woman and mars her reputation. The Courts are sensitized that rape is a violation of victim's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and rape victim is placed on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. Being the most hatred crime, rape tantamount to a serious blow to the supreme honour of a woman and is a crime against the entire society as well.

JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.07.2016, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tinsukia, in Sessions Case no. 64(M)/2011, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 9 (nine) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default further imprisonment for three month.

3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on the night of 26.11.09, at about 10:00 P.M., while the victim was on her way to home on foot from Digboi Chariali market and arrived near Digboi club, one Muslim man having beard forcefully took her to the bathroom of nearby swimming pool and committed rape upon her. On receiving the verbal information from the victim on the following day i.e. on 27.11.2009, at 11.45 A.M., the Digboi Police Station GD Entry no. 1014, dated 27.11.2009 was made and the victim was sent to the hospital for medical examination. ASI Sashi Thakuli, who was entrusted with the investigation of the case by the Officer-in-charge, Digboi P.S., visited the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map and also recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 27.11.09 itself, as shown by the victim, the accused was apprehended and brought to the police station. The formal ejahar was lodged by the victim on the same day at about 5.30 P.M. and accordingly Digboi P.S. Case no. 264/09, under Section 376 of the IPC was registered. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the accused was arrested and forwarded to Court. The medical report of the victim was collected and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 376 of the IPC.

4. On being committed, the case was tried for commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC and the accused denied the charge.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven (7) witnesses including the I.O. and M.O. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. In support of his case, the accused/appellant examined two defence witnesses. The plea of the defence was of denial and after completion of the trial, the accused/appellant was held guilty and convicted, as stated earlier. Hence the appeal.

6. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both sides at length and perused the record and evidence adduced by both parties.

7. The learned counsel Mr. N. Hasan, appearing on behalf of the appellant with vehemence has submitted that in the present case the victim has changed her version in course of trial as that of the FIR but the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid discrepancy and inconsistent evidence of the victim and also the fact that the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. Furthermore it has been contended that the wearing apparel of the victim were not seized by the I.O. for forensic examination, although the victim has stated that the same were taken by the I.O. Over and above, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the evidence of the victim is also not supported by any independent witness, nor the relevant witnesses referred by the victim has been examined by the I.O. Assailing the judgment that the conviction rendered by the learned trial Court on the basis of sole testimony of the victim is bad in law and it is prayed to allow the present appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment and order and acquit the accused/appellant from the offence.

8. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

(1) Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, : AIR 2020