In sexual assault cases, the victim's testimony alone is sufficient for conviction if consistent. Previous statements to the police cannot be used for contradiction unless the witness is specifically confronted with them during cross-examination, and the prosecution must prove aggravations for sentencing enhancement during trial.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Crl. A. No.14 of 2021 (Ganesh Dhakal vs. State of Sikkim and Crl. A. No. 27 of 2023 (State of Sikkim vs. Ganesh Dhakal) are being taken up together and disposed of by this common Judgment, as the facts involved are the same.

Crl. A. No.14 of 2021

2. The Appellant, a thirty year-old male, was convicted of the offences under Sections 342, 366 and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the “IPC”), by the Court of the Learned Judge, Fast Track, South and West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, in ST (Fast Track) Case No.03 of 2020 (State of Sikkim vs. Ganesh Dhakal), vide the impugned Judgment, dated 26-08-2021, for committing the said offences, against the victim PW-1, aged about eighteen years, at the time of the offence. The Appellant was consequently sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year under Section 342 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment of ten years under Section 366 of the IPC and fine of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only, under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The fines bore default stipulations.

Crl. A. No.27 of 2023

3. The State-Appellant by filing an Appeal under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C., sought enhancement of the sentence imposed on the Respondent by the impugned Order on Sentence, dated 31- 08-2021, by conversion of the Charge framed against the Respondent under Section 376(1) of the IPC, under which he was convicted, to Sections 376(2)(b) and (c) of the IPC, it was contended that the charges framed against the Respondent were erroneous and the sentence imposed upon such conviction was inadequate as the Respondent was a Government servant, thereby bringing him within the ambit of the aforementioned provisions of law and not under Section 376(1) of the IPC.

4. Before proceeding to analyse the evidence on record and the arguments advanced before this Court, the Prosecution case is summarised herein. PW-1, the eighteen year-old victim girl, lodged an FIR, Exbt-1, on 15-07-2020, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by the Appellant on 12-07-2020 (Sunday), at around 09.00 p.m. PW-2 her cousin, had spent the relevant night in her home (home of PW-1). After PW-1 had fallen asleep she was later woken up by PW-2, asking her to accompany her to the roadside below the house as a friend of hers was delivering a packet for her. On the insistence of PW-2, PW-1 accompanied her. At the road a car driven by the Appellant, accompanied by another male passenger, PW-4, seated in the back seat arrived at where they were. PW-2 boarded the second seat of the car where PW-4 was already seated, while the Appellant physically overpowered PW-1, forced her into the car and drove with one hand, while holding her hands with other. Despite her threat to jump out of the moving vehicle, he refused to stop and after some time reached a house. He then took her forcibly into one of the bedrooms of the house, while PW-2 went into another room with PW-4. PW-1 was sexually assaulted by the Appellant for about half an hour, after which he went into the kitchen alone for food, while taking her clothes with him, returned and again continued to rape her. At around 02.30 a.m. PW-4 came knocking at their door, urging the Appellant to open it and to drop PW-1 and PW-2 back to their house. She was finally driven back to the same roadside by the Appellant, duly accompanied by PW-2 and PW-4. PW-1 and PW-2 then walked to the house of PW-1, while the Appellant and PW-4