Back
2019 Supreme(Sikk) 54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JJ.
Mahindra Shanker (Bishwakarma) Son of Devi Lall Shankar - Appellant
Versus
State of Sikkim - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2018
Decided On : 08-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Gita Bista, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K Chettri, Assistant Public Prosecutor
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases of alleged rape, emphasizing the need for a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged and the trustworthiness of the prosecutrix's evidence.
Headnote:
Section 376 - Rape - IPC 376(2)(j), 376(2)(l), 451 - The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant being entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550, emphasizing the need for strong motive to falsely involve the person charged and the trustworthiness of the prosecutrix's evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(j), 376(2)(l) and 451 IPC for committing rape and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. The victim, a differently-abled person, alleged that the appellant had committed rape on her at her residence. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant being entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appellant's release was ordered, and the lower court records were to be sent back.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt in the case of alleged rape.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged and the trustworthiness of the prosecutrix's evidence, as established in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The lower court records were to be sent back, and a copy of the order was to be sent to the learned Trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.
1. Heard Ms Gita Bista, learned Legal Aid Counsel and Mr. S.K. Chettri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Sikkim.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 11.07.2018 and the order on sentence dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok in Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No. 02 of 2017, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(2) (j), 376 (2)(l) and 451 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 376(2)(j) IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine to Rs.3,000/- under Section 376(2)(l) IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 451 IPC, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
3. The First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) (Exhibit-1) was lodged by one "A" (name withheld), a Member of Ward Panchayat, before the Pakyong Police Station on 20.08.2016 at 03.30 p.m. stating that she had received a telephone call at around 10 a.m. from one "X" (name withheld), informing her that at around 7 p.m. of the previous night, rape was committed by the appellant upon "Y" (name withheld), hereinafter referred to as the victim, at her residence.
4. On receipt of the information, Pakyong Police Station Case No. 18 of 2016 under section 376 IPC was registered. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, charge sheet being Charge Sheet no.13 dated 05.01.2017 under section 376 IPC was submitted.
5. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East at Gangtok, vide Order dated 13.01.2017 committed the case to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok who transferred the case to the Court of Judge, Fast Track Court, East and North Sikkim wherein Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No. 02 of 2017 was registered.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court Judge framed charges against the appellant under sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(l) and under section 451 IPC. The same being read over and explained to the appellant in Nepali language, the language he understood, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. During trial, prosecution examined 17 (seventeen) witnesses. Defence adduced no evidence. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, where a plea of denial was taken by the appellant.
8. The victim was examined as PW-1. The informant was examined as PW-2. The husband and son of the victim were examined as PW-8 and PW-9, respectively. X, who was stated to have given the information to PW-2, was examined as PW-11. PW-5 is the Doctor who had examined the victim on 20.08.2016 and PW-6 is the Doctor who had examined the appellant on 22.08.2016. PW-14 is the Medical Officer who had examined the appellant on 20.08.2016. PW-4 is a child witness, aged about 13 (thirteen) years and PW-3 is the mother of PW-4 and an eye witness. PW-7 is the Scientific Officer of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Saramsa. PW-10 is a witness to the rough sketch map (Exhibit-6) of the place of occurrence and a seizure (Exhibit-7) witness of a boxer pant (Material Object-IV) stated to be of the appellant. PW-12 is the Judicial Officer who recorded the section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Exhibit-11) of the victim. PW-13 is the Station House Officer of Pakyong who registered the Pakyong P.S Case No.18/2016. PW-15 is a neighbour of the victim and who met PW-3 immediately after the incident. PW-16 is the seizure witness of the “lungi” worn by the victim (Material Object-I) of the victim and the boxer pant of the appellant. PW-1
