Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MEGH) 376
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, J
FASTER BAREH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA – Respondent
Crl.A. 11 / 2023
Mr. M. Lyngdoh, Adv., Mr. J. Thabah, GA, Ms. S. Shyam, GA
The survivor's conduct post-incident raised doubts about consent, leading to the quashing of the conviction due to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(4) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Appeal against conviction for rape - Conviction based on survivor's testimony, but inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence raised doubts - Court emphasized that survivor's conduct post-incident did not align with that of a victim - Conviction quashed due to benefit of doubt. (Paras 21, 20, 19, 18)
(B) Evidence - Testimony of survivor - While survivor's testimony can be sufficient for conviction, it must be reliable and inspire confidence - Conduct of survivor post-incident is crucial in assessing consent. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for raping a minor on 14.06.2012, based on the survivor's testimony and a FIR lodged by her sister. The trial court sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's reliance on the survivor's testimony was questioned due to inconsistencies and the survivor's conduct post-incident, which did not indicate a lack of consent. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the survivor's testimony, the question of consent, and the admissibility of statements made under Section 161 CrPC. (Paras 20, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the survivor's conduct post-incident raised doubts about the prosecution's case, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Conviction quashed and the appellant set at liberty.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contradictory evidence (Para 2) |
| 2. survivor's relationship with appellant (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. appellant's presence acknowledged (Para 5) |
| 4. minority of survivor (Para 6) |
| 5. survivor's testimony (Para 7) |
| 6. witness statements (Para 8) |
| 7. medical examination findings (Para 9) |
| 8. eyewitness account (Para 10) |
| 9. investigation process (Para 11) |
| 10. defence witness testimony (Para 12) |
| 11. evidence analysis (Para 13) |
| 12. survivor's post-incident conduct (Para 14) |
| 13. reluctance to pursue case (Para 15) |
| 14. use of section 161 statements (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 15. reliability of survivor's testimony (Para 19) |
| 16. doubt on prosecution case (Para 20) |
| 17. conviction quashed (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
This appeal under Section 374(4) CrPC has been filed against the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2023 and the Order of Sentence of even date passed by the learned Sessions Judge, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2022 convicting the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹ 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only.
1. The fact of the case in brief is that on 15.06.2012, a written FIR was lodged by the PW-2(sister of the survivor) before the Officer -In- Charge, Khliehriat Police Station, alleging that on 14.06.2012 at around 8:30 PM the survivor was raped by the appellant at a place called Satad Jalaphet. On the basis of the said FIR, the Khliehriat PS Case No. 99(6)12 under Section 376 IPC was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, a prima facie case under Section 376 IPC was found well established against the appellant and accordingly a charge sheet vide CS No. 139/13 dated 20.11.2013 under Section 376 IPC was filed. On 09.03.2022, charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the appellant and the matter proceeded for evidence. The prosecution examined 5(five) witnesses and exhibited 4(four) documents and 1(one) paper mark in support of its case. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and 1(one) witness was examined as defence witness by the appellant. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2023 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years and also imposed a fine of ₹ 10,000/-.
2. Assailing the conviction, Mr. M. Lyngdoh, learned counsel submits that the FSL report, which is contradictory to the prosecution version of the case and the medical opinion of PW3, was purposely omitted by the prosecution in spite of the fact that the Director, FSL, Shillong was named as a witness in the list of witness attached to the charge sheet. Referring to the evidence of PW-1, the survivor, the learned counsel submits that even the statement of the survivor is contradictory on many accounts and does not make out a case of rape. The learned counsel submits that the appellant and the survivor were in a relationship at the time of the alleged incident and the survivor of her own free will accompanied the appellant on the day of the alleged incident. There is nothing in evidence to show or project that the appellant applied any force on the survivor or committed any crime. He contends that the PW2, who was against the relationship between the appellant and the survivor, filed a false FIR to harass the appellant. The learned counsel further submits that the survivor during the course of investigation declined to get her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC inspite of several efforts by the investigating agency which clearly establishes that she was not at all interested in pursuing the accusation against the appellant. He submits that the learned trial court has adopted only prosecution version of the evidence and totally ignored the evidences which were in support of the appellant. He contends that the reason and finding recorded by the trial court is not tenable in law and the impugn
