2018 Supreme(Sikk) 51

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM, GANGTOK
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
State of Sikkim – Appellant
Versus
Dawa Tshering Bhutia S/o Late Lumug Bhutia – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 18 of 2017
Decided On : 24-05-2018

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's reasoning is perverse or unsustainable. While a sole witness's testimony can support a conviction, it must be consistent and free from material contradictions, especially when the defense provides a plausible alternative explanation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354 - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty - Essential ingredients - (i) assault or use of criminal force; (ii) intent or knowledge that it would outrage modesty. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15)

(B) Evidence - Witness credibility - Requirement for consistency and reliability - Where a witness testimony is riddled with material contradictions, improvements, and inconsistencies across various stages of the recording of statements, it fails to meet the standard of a sterling witness and necessitates corroboration to form a basis for conviction. (Paras 25, 27, 33, 34, 59)

(C) Appeal - Interference with order of acquittal - Scope and power - An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal merely because a different view is possible - Interference is warranted only if the trial court’s reasoning is perverse, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable. (Paras 21-24, 46, 58)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that her former employer attempted to outrage her modesty through physical force within the place of employment. The defense contended that the complainant was dismissed from her job due to misconduct, specifically regarding unauthorized activities, and subsequently fabricated the criminal allegations to seek personal vengeance against the employer. The trial court acquitted the accused, concluding that the prosecution’s evidence was riddled with inconsistencies and that the defense version of a prior altercation was plausible. The state filed an appeal challenging this acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the complainant’s testimony exhibited critical variations and improvements between the initial complaint, the statement recorded by the magistrate, and the final deposition in court. The evidence provided by the prosecution failed to corroborate the core allegations, and the prosecution failed to establish the incident beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the defense successfully raised a reasonable doubt through the evidence of prior animosity.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal and whether a conviction could be safely based on the uncorroborated, shifting testimony of a witness who had a motive for false implication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a victim’s testimony is strewed with exaggerations, embellishments, and internal contradictions, the prosecution's case loses its substratum. In such instances, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence, which is fortified by an order of acquittal, and refrain from interference if the findings of the trial court are reasonable and based on cogent materials.

Result: Appeal dismissed.