State of Sikkim vs Padam Bahadur Panday (Chettri)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Sikk) 99

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
State of Sikkim – Appellant
Versus
Padam Bahadur Panday (Chettri) – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Dr. (Ms.) Doma T. Bhutia, Public Prosecutor with Mr. S.K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant; Mr. Karma Thinlay, Senior Advocate (Pro Bono) with Ms. Sonam Wangmo Dorjee, Advocate, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - This Appeal assails the Judgment of the Learned Fast Track Court, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok, dated 30.05.2019, in S.T. (FT) Case No.03 of 2019, whereby the Respondent-Accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 376 (2)(l) and Section 376(2)(n) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, the “IPC”), citing lack of evidence and thereby extending the benefit of doubt to him.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor, impugning the Judgment of the Learned Fast Track Court contended that, in fact, there was adequate evidence which proved the Prosecution case beyond a reasonable doubt against the Respondent who ought to have been convicted of the offences charged with. That, the Victim has categorically asserted in her Statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”) that there was penetration of her genital by that of the Respondent’s, thereby constituting the offence of rape. That, penetration does not have to be complete penetration for the offence of rape as held in Aman Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana (2004) 4 SCC 379. That apart, the evidence of the Victim is of sterling quality being cogent and t