State of Sikkim vs Jigmee Bhutia - 2021 Supreme(Sikk) 140

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Sikk) 140

J. K. MAHESHWARI, MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
State of Sikkim – Appellant
Versus
Jigmee Bhutia – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant; Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yozan Rai, Advocate, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - Dissatisfied with the Judgment in Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No.17 of 2018, dated 29.08.2019, vide which the Respondent was acquitted of the offences under Sections 376 (1), 457 and 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “IPC”), the instant Appeal has been preferred.

2. Assailing the findings of the Learned Trial Court, the Learned Public Prosecutor, before this Court, contended that there was sufficient and cogent evidence to establish the Prosecution case against the Respondent. That, in a plethora of Judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that conviction on the sole testimony of a victim is permissible and requires no corroboration. On this aspect, reliance was placed on Ganesan v. State , represented by its Inspector of Police (2020) 10 SCC 573 . That, the case of the victim has been consistent in the First Information Report (for short, “FIR”), in her Statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) and in her evidence during trial. That, her testimony has been duly corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, which the Learned Trial Court overlooked. That, a woman who is a vic