The judgment establishes the principle that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony is vital and should be relied upon if found credible, but it must be corroborated and the offense must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Appellant is before this Court, assailing the Judgment and Order on Sentence, both dated 17-08-2015, of the Learned Judge, Fast Track Court, South and West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, in Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No.09 of 2014, convicting and sentencing him as follows;

(a) to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).

(b) Simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 506 of the IPC and

(c) Simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, under Section 457 of the IPC.

The default stipulations appears jointly for Sections 376 and 457 of the IPC. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently, duly setting off the period already undergone by the Appellant.

2. The Prosecution case is that, Exhibit 1, a written FIR was received from P.W.1, the victim, on 08-07-2014, informing therein that, on 07-07-2014 at around 10 p.m. while she was alone and asleep in her house, the Appellant tore the plastic ceiling of her house, entered therein and sexually assaulted her, threatening her with death if she approached the Police. On receipt of the Complaint, it was duly registered as Gyalshing Police Station (G.P.S.) Case No.36/2014 against the Appellant and investigation taken up.

3. Investigation so conducted revealed that the Appellant was a labourer and distant relative of the victim who used to frequent her house. That, a day before the incident, he had received an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only, from his employer, one Phurzang Bhutia, with which he paid off his dues and after partaking of liquor went to the house of the victim at around 2200 hours, aware that she was alone. Meanwhile, the husband and daughter of the victim being out in Darjeeling for personal work and the victim being alone fell asleep. The Appellant entered the room through the plastic ceiling of the victim’s house and raped her despite her cries for help, pursuant to which he slept in her room, while the victim went to an adjacent prayer room and slept there. Next morning, she reported the matter to P.W.6, the Ward Panchayat and lodged Exhibit 1. Meanwhile, the Appellant had absconded and took shelter in the house of various relatives at Gangtok, Tashiding and ultimately at Rongli, from where he was taken into custody by the Rongli Police and eventually arrested at Gyalshing by the Investigating Officer (for short “I.O.”). That, the victim had been sexually assaulted by the Appellant about eleven months prior to the instant incident which she had brought to the notice of P.W.2, her husband who, however, took no action. The victim was medically examined, blood sample was drawn from the Appellant and the Exhibits forwarded to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Tripura, for DNA comparison. On Completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Appellant under Sections 376/506/323/457 of the IPC.

4. The Learned Trial Court framed Charge against the Appellant under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 506 and 457 of the IPC. On a plea of “not guilty”, the Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to establish its case. The Appellant thereafter was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.), to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, arguments were heard and the impugned Judgment and Sentence were pronounced as detailed hereinabove.

5. It is the contention of the Appellant before this Court that in fact the act was consensual which would be evident from the fact that the Prosecution has failed to establish as to how the Appellant came into her house through the ceiling. No threat was held out to her before the commission of the rape as apparent from Exhibit 1 and the person of the victim was devoid of any injuries, except for some bruises