IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces that verbal abuse and obscene gestures can constitute an offense under Section 509 IPC, emphasizing the need for respect in personal interactions.

JUDGMENT :

Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, who has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar in connection with Sessions Case No. 16 of 2012 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC for short) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with default stipulation.

2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.S. Laskar for the respondent State.

3. The appellant Sanjoy Adhikary, hereinafter will be referred to as the accused.

4. The genesis of the case is that on 26.10.2011 at about 5:00 PM, the victim X was in Shyama Puja Mandap of Ward No. 10 (Office Colony), Kokrajhar along with her friend. At that time, she saw the accused at that place and she walked up to the accused and demanded money he had to repay, and also she asked the accused to return some other articles. The accused then uttered obscene words and assaulted her and she slumped to the ground and consequentially, her spectacles were damaged.

5. An FIR regarding this incident was lodged with the police, which was registered as Kokrajhar Police Station Case No. 416/2011 under Sections 294/354/506/34 of the IPC and later Sections 493/376/420 of the IPC were added. The Investigating Officer (IO for short) embarked upon the investigation. The IO went to the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and on finding sufficient materials, the IO submitted charge sheet against the accused under Sections 493/376/420 of the IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished and this case was committed for trial.

6. At the commencement of trial, formal charges under Section 376/354 of the IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused abjured his guilt and claimed innocence. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 9 (Nine) witnesses including the Medical Officer (MO for short) and the IO. The defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the chargse. On the incriminating materials arising against him, several questions were asked to the accused under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short). The accused denied the allegations in a blanket manner but he has admitted about the puja on the day of the incident.

Submissions:

7. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that the learned trial Court has erred in law as the evidence on record was not properly marshaled by the learned trial Court. There is no corroboration between the evidence of the witnesses PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 and thus, their evidence was not found to be reliable, cogent and trustworthy. The charge under Section 509 IPC was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has laid stress in his argument that a lenient view was taken and a correct order was passed by the learned trial Court.

Discussions and decision:

9. To decide this case in its proper perspective, the evidence is reappraised.

10. The victim X testified as PW.1 that she had a love relationship with the accused from 1999. As her family was suffering from financial constraints, the accused used to help her financially. She was a student pursuing her Bachelors of Arts (B.A. in short) and at the same time she used to work as a teacher in a private school, but on the advice of the accused, she left her job and started her own school. Both the family members of the accused and the family members of the victim had discussions relating to their marriage, and the accused promised to marry the victim and he then induced the victim to have sexual intercourse with him. The accused in this manner had physical relationship with the victim since 2002. The accused thus induced the victim to have physical relationship with him. The accused impregnated the victim but when she was c