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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Kalyan Rai Surana, Marli Vankung, JJ.
Nuru Sikdar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. A./27/2023
Decided On : 13-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:H.R.A. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent: PP

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 4 - Conviction for rape of a minor - The appellant was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.40,000/- by the Trial Court - The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to glaring inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence - The victim's statement did not inspire confidence, and the trial was conducted without a Public Prosecutor, raising questions about fairness - Conviction quashed and appeal allowed. (Paras 24, 36, 37)

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P. for the State and Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (i.e. informant).

2. This appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is for assailing the judgment dated 05.12.2022, and sentence dated 03.01.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon in Spl. POSCO Case No. 4/2020. By the said impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for committing offence punishable under section 376 of the I.P.C. and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "POCSO Act" for brevity) and by the sentence impugned herein, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 (twenty) years and also to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-, to be paid to the victim if recovered, and in default to under further rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months.

3. In this judgment and order, the name of the then minor victim and the informant are masked to protect their identity and the victim is hereinafter referred to as 'X' and the informant, who is the father of the then minor victim is hereinafter referred to as 'Y'.

4. The prosecution case was set rolling by Y, who had lodged an FIR on 05.01.2020, before the Officer-in-Charge, Basugaon P.S., alleging that on the same day at around 5.00 p.m. when his minor daughter X, who had gone to the nearby field to bring the cattle back, the appellant, who was waiting near his home took the advantage of the absence of any other person there, grabbed his daughter and gagged her and by removing her clothes, took her photographs in his mobile phone and after threatening to tell other persons and send her photographs to other people to defame her, raped her and later, his daughter came home crying and narrated the incident to them. On receipt of the said FIR, Basugaon P.S. Case No. 2/2020 was registered under section 376 IPC read with section 4 of the POCSO Act and the case was assigned to Hare Krishna Kalita, S.I. of Police (PW-4) for investigation.

5. The I.O. had investigated the case, prepared the sketch-map, examined witnesses, seized the photocopy of the birth certificate of X, the victim, and got the victim's statement recorded under section 164 CrPC, collected medical report. On completion of investigation, the I.O. had submitted the charge sheet no. 2/2020 dated 31.01.2020.

6. On 14.03.2022, the learned Special Judge read-over and explained charges to the appellant under section 376(3) IPC read with section 4 of POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

7. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined 4 (four) PWs.

    a. Y, the informant was examined as PW-1. He had exhibited FIR as Ext.P-1; First Information Form (Ext.P-2); medico-legal report of the victim (Ext.P-3); seizure list of photocopy of birth certificate (Ext.P-4); birth certificate of the victim that was seized by Ext.P-4 (Mat. Ext.1).

    b. X, the victim was examined as PW-2. She had exhibited her statement under section 164 CrPC (Ext.P-5); student registration card (Ext.P-6).

    c. Dr. Mrs. Dipali Bordoloi Manta was examined as PW-3. She had exhibited radiological report of the victim (Ext.P-5); report of pregnancy test and swab test (Ext.P-6);.

    d. Hare Krishna Kalita, I.O. was examined as PW-4. He had exhibited the signature of Harin Chandra Deka, O/c. of Basugaon P.S. [Ext.P- 1(2)] and [Ext.P-2(2)]; prayer for recording statement of victim under section 164 CrPC (Ext.P-6); sketch map (Ext.P-7); charge-sheet (Ext.P- 8). He had also exhibited his signature as Ext.P-4(3), Ext.P-6(1), Ext.P- 7(1), and Ext.P-8(1).

    e. The learned Trial Court had examined Resminara Khatun as CW-1, and A (name withheld), the younger sister of victim as CW-2.

8. It may be mentioned that Trial Court Record (TCR for short) contains three documents marked as Ext.6. One is photocopy of Student Registration Card, 2019 issued by the

    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
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top