Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
NANI TAGIA, J.
Otul Borgoahin, S/o Lt. Bhogeshwar Borgohain – Appellant
Versus
State of Arunachal Pradesh - Respondent
Crl.A(J) 10(AP)2020
Decided on : 03-03-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2), 313, 164, 161 – Prosecution has examined – Committing rape – Jail appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment & order, passed by learned Sessions Court, in Session Case, sentencing accused/appellant to undergo an imprisonment for a term for offence held to be committed under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code – Held, It is correct to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, on basis of solitary evidence of prosecutrix provided same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality – But, in case in hand, evidence of prosecutrix showing several significant contradiction as to number of times accused committed rape on her and no injury having been found on body of victim by PW-4(Doctor) despite victim having stated that she was assaulted by accused by punching and kicking on her thighs before committing rape on her as well as after rape was committed, evidence of prosecutrix is found to be not inspiring any confidence on this Court to make it appear to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality so as to sustain conviction of accused/appellant in instant case – For reasons and discussions made hereinabove, of considered view that learned Sessions Court, Tezu could not have recorded conviction of accused/appellant, under Section 376 of IPC, by solely relying on evidences of PWs-1 and 2 – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused/appellant and Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. This Jail appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment & order dated 29.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Court at Tezu, in Session Case No.28(LDV)/2018(State Vs. Otul Borgohain), sentencing the accused/appellant to undergo an imprisonment for a term of 6(six) years for the offence held to be committed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, are as follows:
(i) An FIR dated 30.04.2018 was lodged by the husband of the victim before the Officer-in-Charge, Roing Police Station, informing that on 30.04.2018 at around 3.00 PM, while his wife(victim) went to Kangkong Pathar for bringing their cows; suddenly, the accused committed rape on the victim forcefully by blocking her mouth and brutally beaten her.
(ii) The aforesaid FIR was received on 01.05.2018, and the Roing P.S. Case No.19/2018, under Section 376 of the IPC was registered against the accused.
(iii) On the same date i.e., 01.05.2019, medical examination of the victim and the accused was conducted by the Doctor, whose opinion rendered after examination of the victim and the accused was that as per physical examination, there is no concrete evidence of sexual assault on the victim and there is no sign of evidence of recent sexual intercourse by the accused.
(iv) The Medical Examination report of the victim as well as the accused is extracted hereinbelow without indicating the name of the victim.
| “ PROFORMA FOR INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL OFFENCE | ||
|
| Session Case No.28(LDV)/2018 P-EXHIBIT NO.2 Date 28/02/2019 Sess. Judge Sd/- Illegible | |
| Requisition from Roing of Police Station Roing Vide his letter no Nil dated 01/05/2018 |
| |
| 1. Name of the individual | Smti XXX | |
| 2. Sex | Female | |
| 3. Name of the Parents/Guardians | W/o Shri XXX | |
| 4. Address | Vill. Pachim Padam Pukuri PO Shantipur | |
| 5. Occupation | Farmer | |
| 6. Cast | Nepali | |
| 7. Married or Single | Married | |
| 8. Age stated by | 45 yrs/F | |
| 9. Persons accompanying or Brought by | (1) Husband of victim (2) L/Ct. N. Tesia | |
| 10. Time & Place of Examination | 10.45 Am D.H. Roing | |
| 11. Consent of the individual for | Taken | |
| 12. In the case of minors, consent of The guardian And his/her sign. Or Left thumb impression. |
| |
| 13. Name of the Nurse present at the Time of examination | Ms. Radha Chetry | |
| 14. Marks of Identification |
| |
| Physical Examination :- (FEMALE) | |
| 1. Height |
|
| 2. Weight |
|
| 3. Breadth |
|
| 4. Chest girth at the level of the nipple | 89 cm |
| 5. Abdominal girth at the level of navel | 81 cm |
| 6. General build and appearance |
|
| 7. Voice | Adult type |
| 8. Teeth | Carries present/adulthood |
| 9. Hair | long, normal texture |
| 10. Axillaries | Adult types, curly |
| 11. Public | long, curly, Adult type |
| 12. Mammo-development of breast milk in |
|
| 13. Generative Organs-development of Genitals | Fully developed No sign of injuries seen. |
| 14. Onset of Puberty date |
|
| 15. Ossification report from the radiological Examination |
|
| 16. Age | 45 yrs |
| 17. History |
|
| 18. Date & hour when the female first made Complaint and the precise words employed | 30/04/2018 at around 4.30 PM On road |
| By her at the time, i.e. (a detailed Account of The occurrence as given by the women) |
|
| 19. General Behavior | Normal in appearance |
| 20. Date & exact time when the rape was Said to have been committed | On 30/04/2018 at around 4.30 PM |
| 21. Place where it occurred | on road |
| 22. The exact circumstances under which The rape was committed (e.g) whether parties were standing or lying on the Ground | lying on ground. Both hand |
Rape – There is no rule of law or practice that evidence of prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
The Court established that minor contradictions in a victim's testimony should not discredit credible evidence in a rape case; corroboration is not mandatory if the victim's evidence inspires confide....
The court upheld the conviction of both appellants for gang rape, affirming that witness credibility and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case.
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 t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
