Kadar N. Marak vs State of Meghalaya

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Megh) 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. DIENGDOH, J.
Shri. Kadar N. Marak – Appellants
Versus
State of Meghalaya & 2 Ors. – Respondents
Crl. A. No. 7 of 2019
Decided on : 26-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Gurung, GA with Ms. S. Shyam, GA

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Appeal against conviction for rape - The prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt; contradictions and lack of direct evidence led to the conclusion that the appellant was not proven guilty - Reliance solely on the statements of the deceased victim could not substitute corroborative evidence required for conviction. (Paras 33, 35, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the rape of the wife of the informant based on her statements made under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC, while the co-accused was acquitted. The victim's contradictory statements and absence of corroborative evidence led to the appeal.

Findings of Court:
The conviction and sentence were overturned due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and the lack of reliable evidence.

Issues: Main issues included the sufficiency of the victim's statements as standalone evidence, the relevance of corroborative evidence, and the principle that a conviction for rape cannot rely solely on the victim's testimony in the absence of corroboration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conviction cannot stand where the evidence lacks consistency and reliability, emphasizing that the sole testimony of the victim must be corroborated for a conviction in rape cases.

Result: The appeal is allowed, and the conviction of the appellant is set aside, with all liabilities discharged.

Table of Content
1. overview of the incident and fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. critique of investigation and witness credibility. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 18 , 19)
3. witness testimonies regarding the incident. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 14)
4. inconsistencies in victim's statements. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
5. issues with dying declaration and evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. standard for conviction based on victim testimony. (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
7. conclusion and quashing of conviction. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

W. DIENGDOH, J.

1. The uncontroverted facts of the case leading to the filing of this criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.PC wherein, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Garo Hills, District, Williamnagar in Sessions Case No. 14/2009 was assailed goes in this manner:

2. That on 06.01.2009, Shri. Kalnesh Sangma proceeded to Songsak village along with his wife to collect C.I. Sheet subsidy as provided under the MLA Scheme, from the residence of the local MLA. On reaching Songsak bazar, he instructed his wife to wait for him at the bazar while he proceeded towards the house of the MLA. It appears that he did not come to fetch his wife from the bazar and had proceeded home on his own. The next day, he came to look for her and was informed that she was at the residence of Libing Sangma and his wife. On reaching home, his wife narrated to him that about 6:30 pm or so on the previous day while she was in the bazar, she was raped by two persons.

3. The said Kalnesh Sangma then lodged an FIR before the In-Charge, Songsak AD Camp, East Garo Hills District on 09.01.2009 with a report that his wife was raped by Shri Kadar M. Marak (the appellant herein) and Shri Koeli Sangma, both of Songsak, Agalgre.

4. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the FIR as Williamnagar P.S. Case No. 3(01)2009, under Section 376 IPC and investigation was carried out. The Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet on 13.05.2009 finding a prima facie case under Section 376 IPC well made out against Shri Kadar N. Marak. As to the accused, Koeli Sangma, the I/O has opined that he may not have committed the offence but has only witnessed the same, therefore, he may be considered as an approver.

5. The Trial Court on consideration of the charge sheet has, however, framed charges against the two accused persons under Section 376 IPC and on their denial by pleading not guilty to such a charge, directed that they face trial.

6. In course of trial, about 8(eight) out of the 10(ten) cited witnesses were examined and on conclusion of the recording of evidence, the accused/appellant Kadar Marak as well as Koeli Sangma were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. The reply to the questions put by the court on the incriminating evidence against them was duly recorded. The argument of the prosecution and the defence was heard and the learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2017 has thought it fit to convict the appellant herein, who was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 7(seven) years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for another 2(two) weeks, while the other accused person Shri. Koeli Sangma was given the benefit of doubt and was set free.

7. Referring to the evidence as well as the materials available on record, Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the police investigation has proceeded on the basis of an unverified rumor that someone has been raped and, in the process, one of the two young men who were seen having tea with the alleged victim has been convicted for an offence which may or may not have occurred in the first place.

8. Let us first look into the evidence tendered by the informant, the husband of the victim, who was examined as PW-3. This witness as regard the allegation of rape, has deposed that he knew both the accused persons. He confirmed