SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Manish Choudhury, Robin Phukan, JJ.
Sri Dhan Bahadur Dorjee, S/o -Late Debraj Dorjee - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by Public Prosecutor and ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 2020
Decided On : 02-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Chamuah, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondent: Ms. S. Jahan, Additional Public Prosecutor

The testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual assault cases can be the sole basis for conviction if credible, and delays in lodging FIRs may not be fatal if reasonably explained.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 3 and Section 6 - Conviction for penetrative sexual assault - Accused sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- - Delay in lodging FIR explained due to absence of informant - Testimony of prosecutrix found credible and corroborated by medical evidence - Presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act activated against accused. (Paras 1, 10, 21, 30, 33)

(B) Testimony of prosecutrix - Not treated as an accomplice - Conviction can be based on her sole testimony if credible - Absence of external injuries does not negate sexual assault. (Paras 25, 26)

(C) Delay in lodging FIR - Not fatal if reasonably explained - Factors such as fear and societal stigma considered. (Paras 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The accused-appellant, husband of the informant, was convicted for raping his 16-year-old daughter, the prosecutrix, on 04.03.2015, with the FIR lodged on 12.03.2015 after the informant returned home.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the prosecutrix's testimony credible, corroborated by medical evidence, and established the charge of penetrative sexual assault.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the appropriateness of the sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecutrix's testimony was sufficient for conviction, and the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

 

The instant criminal appeal under Section 374[2], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Karbi Anglong at Diphu [‘the trial court’, for short] in Special Case no. 01/2015. By the said Judgment and Order dated 04.12.2018, the accused-appellant has been convicted for committing the offence of ‘penetrative sexual assault’, defined in Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012, and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 [two] months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that investigating machinery was set into motion when the informant as the mother of the prosecutrix, lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Kheroni Police Station on 12.03.2015 in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 4.03.2015. In the FIR, the informant had inter alia alleged that at around 10-00 p.m. on 04.03.2015, the accused who is the husband of the informant, finding the second daughter of the informant [hereinafter referred to as ‘the prosecutrix’], aged about 16 years, alone at home, raped her after giving her threat that she would be cut. The informant had alleged that the accused had committed the act even though the prosecutrix resisted him. The informant had further mentioned that on that day, she had gone to the house of her elder daughter located at Sildubi. It was mentioned that when the informant returned after a few days, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her.

3. On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Kheroni Police Station registered the same as Kheroni Police Station Case no. 32/2015, on 12.03.2015, for the offences under Section 376[2][f], Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and entrusted the investigation to one V. Hmar [P.W.8], a Sub-Inspector of Police [W] attached to Kheroni Police Station.

4. The Investigating Officer [I.O.] of the case, during the course of investigation; visited the place of occurrence; and drew a sketch map of the place of occurrence. The I.O. of the case apart from recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161, CrPC, got the prosecutrix medically examined on 13.03.2015. The I.O. of the case also made a prayer before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hamren for recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164, CrPC and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164, CrPC was recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hamren on 24.03.2015. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and after arrest, the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate, First Class, Hamren Court, Karbi Anglong on 19.04.2015. On being so produced, the learned Magistrate, First Class, Hamren Court remanded the accused to jail custody. The I.O. of the case upon completion of investigation, submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 35/2015 on 30.04.2015 in connection with Kheroni Police Station Case no. 32/2015 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 68/2015] finding a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 376[2][f], Indian Penal Code [IPC] read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 well established against the accused, named in the FIR.

5. On receipt of the Charge-Sheet, the Court of learned Magistrate, First Class, Hamren Court, Karbi Anglong secured appearance of the accused from jail custody and, by an Order dated 08.02.2016, committed the case records of G.R. Case no. 68/2015 to the Court of Sessions with a finding that the offences under Sections 376[2][f], Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate, First Class, Hamren Court, Karbi Anglong s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top