Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1192
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Sri Pani Ram Tokbi – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.292 of 2022
Decided on : 25-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr A Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr R R Kaushik, Addl. P. P, Assam Ms S Medhi
IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in evidence can lead to acquittal in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Criminal - Rape - IPC Section 376, CrPC Section 374(2) - The court analyzed the evidence and contradictions in the victim's statements, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for rape under IPC Section 376, based on the victim's FIR and testimonies. The incident allegedly occurred at gunpoint when the victim was home alone. The FIR was lodged three days later, raising doubts about its credibility.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant contradictions in the victim's statements and the testimonies of witnesses, leading to a lack of reliable evidence to support the conviction. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the appellant committed rape on the victim without consent and whether he possessed a firearm in violation of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and the presence of contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence warranted the benefit of doubt for the appellant.
Result: The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr A Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr R R Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms S Medhi, learned Legal Aid Counsel, for the respondent No. 2.
2. Sri Pani Ram Tokbi has filed this application under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC, for short), challenging the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), with default stipulation.
3. The genesis of the case is that an FIR dated 05.05.2016 was lodged by ‘X’ (name withheld and will also hereinafter be referred to as the victim), contending inter alia, that on 02.05.2016, at about 03:30 pm, when she was alone at home, as her parents went to the nearby hills for ginger cultivation, Paniram Tokbi (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), entered into her house and committed rape on her at gunpoint. She immediately went to the hills to inform her parents and her elder brother about the incident. When her parents enquired about the miscreant, they learnt that the appellant committed the offence.
4. The FIR was lodged by the victim, which was registered as Dillai PS Case No. 11/2016, under Section 376 IPC, read with Section 25 (1-a) of the Arms Act. The Investigating Officer embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence. On finding sufficient materials, charge sheet was laid against the appellant, under Section 376 IPC, read with Section 25 (1-a) of the Arms Act. Subsequently, after commitment, this case was transferred for disposal to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong and after commencement of trial, charges under Section 376 IPC, read with Section 25 (1-a) of the Arms Act, was framed and read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed innocence. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 12 (twelve) witnesses, including the Medical Officer (MO, in short), the Investigating Officer (IO, in short) and APSI Robin Saikia. The defence cross-examined the witnesses to refute the charges. However, the accused did not tender any evidence in defence. On the incriminating materials projected by the prosecution, several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. The tone and tenor of his answers to questions under Section 313 CrPC, depicts that the appellant took the plea of total denial. He has, however, admitted through his answer to Question No. 6, that he was taken to the Police Station, but he is innocent. To Question No., 7, he has answered that he was taken to the Gaonburah, but he did not commit the alleged offence.
5. The following points were delineated by the learned trial Court to decide this case:-
1. Whether the accused on 02.05.2016, at 03:30 pm, in the house of the informant-prosecutrix situated at Gangjang Hira Basti under Dillai PS in the district of Karbi Anglong committed sexual intercourse with the informant-prosecutrix without her consent and against her will at gunpoint and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC?
2. Whether the accused on 02.05.2016 at 03:30 PM possessed and carried a SBML gun to the house of the informant-prosecutrix in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act?
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was lodged after 3 days, i.e., on 05.05.2016, whereas the incident occurred on 02.05.2016, leaving sufficient scope for fabrication of the FIR. It is apparent from the evidence of the victim and the FIR that the victim did not know the name of the appellant, but without properly identifying th
