The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of such proof, the accused cannot be convicted. Additionally, the court applied the principle that an accused charged with a major offence can be convicted for a minor offence if the necessary ingredients of the minor offence are present.

JUDGMENT :

1. The accused person Shri. Denis Mukhim was charged with an offence under Sections 376/511 IPC which was taken cognizance of by the learned Sessions Court, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh.

2. On his appearance before the learned Sessions Court, charges were framed against him under Sections 376/511 IPC on 12.09.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The case then proceeded for trial with the prosecution examining (4) four witnesses and on completion of the prosecution’s evidence, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on being offered, he stated that he would like to adduce evidence from his side. However, from the records, it is seen that the learned defence counsel has declined to adduce evidence on behalf of the accused and the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 03.12.2018 has closed the evidence of the defence, after which the matter proceeded for argument of the parties.

4. A look at the background of this case would show that on 07.12.2015 at about 5:00 PM one person known to the victim as Bahduh Mukhim attempted to rape her when she was on her way home from Sonidan. The incident took place on the road side of Sonidan when Bahduh pulled the victim’s hand and pinned her on the ground and let her go after she raised a hue and cry. The accused/appellant asked her not to disclose the incident to anyone.

5. The FIR filed by the victim herself on 08.12.2015 addressed to the O/C Umsning Police Outpost was duly registered and investigated into by WPSI E. Khardewsaw who after the investigation is over, has come to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sections 376/511 was found well established against the accused person Shri Denis Mukhim and as stated above, he was produced before the learned Sessions Court for trial.

6. The learned Sessions Judge then examined 4(four witnesses), including the victim as PW-1, the Doctor as PW-3 and the Investigating Officer as P.W-4. The FIR and the Medical Report were also exhibited on being produced before the Court.

7. The learned Sessions Judge upon hearing the learned Addl. PP as well as the learned counsel for the accused/appellant has vide judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 convicted the accused under Sections 376/511 IPC and has also sentenced the accused/appellant Denis Mukhim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default of payment of fine, to undergo another six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The accused/appellant was forthwith remanded to custody and is presently lodged in the District Jail.

8. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 the accused/appellant has approached this Court by way of this instant appeal with a prayer to set aside and quash the impugned judgment and order.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.S. Kharshiing has submitted that the appellant will file a written argument in this case to support the contention that no case is made out against the appellant/accused person.

10. In this regard, the written submission of the appellant reveals that only two points were raised in support of his case, the first being that there is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused person has attempted to rape the prosecutrix on 07.12.2015 as alleged and secondly, that the medical report would show that no case is made out against the accused/appellant.

11. It was pointed out that the prosecutrix in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her deposition before the Court as PW-1 did not state that she was raped nor did she deposed that the accused attempted to rape her or even touched her in an inappropriate manner to attract the allegation of attempt to rape or to outrage her modesty.

12. As to the evidence of the Doctor, who had medically examined the victim and has deposed as PW-3, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that