Advocates:
['Mr Sujan Sunwar', 'Asst P P', '', 'Ms Yeshi W Rinchen', 'Addl Public Prosecutor', 'Mr Yadev Sharma', 'Mr S K Chettri', 'Mr Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia', 'Ms Pema Bhutia', 'Asst Public Prosecutor', 'Ms Sushmita Gurung', '', 'Ms Gita Bista Amicus Curiae', 'Ms Sudha Sewa', 'Mr Yozan Rai']

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

DATED : 21^st of July, 2021

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIVISION BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crl.A. No.09 of 2020

Appellant

:

State of Sikkim

versus

Respondent

:

Jigmee Bhutia

Appeal under Section 378 (1)(b)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

--------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan Sunwar,

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant.

Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yozan Rai, Advocate for the

Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1.

Dissatisfied with the Judgment in Sessions Trial (F.T.)

Case No.17 of 2018, dated 29.08.2019, vide which the Respondent

was acquitted of the offences under Sections 376(1), 457 and 323

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, <IPC=), the instant

Appeal has been preferred.

2.

Assailing the findings of the Learned Trial Court, the

Learned Public Prosecutor, before this Court, contended that there

was sufficient and cogent evidence to establish the Prosecution

case against the Respondent. That, in a plethora of Judgments, the

Hon?ble Supreme Court has held that conviction on the sole

testimony of a victim is permissible and requires no corroboration.

On this aspect, reliance was placed on

Ganesan vs. State,

Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 2

State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia

represented by its Inspector of Police¹. That, the case of the victim

has been consistent in the First Information Report (for short,

<FIR=), in her Statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short, <Cr.P.C.=) and in her evidence during

trial. That, her testimony has been duly corroborated by the

evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, which the Learned Trial Court

overlooked. That, a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not

an accomplice to the crime but stands at a higher pedestal than an

injured witness as she suffers from emotional injury, to support

this submission strength was garnered from the ratio in Mohd.

Imran Khan vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi)². It was further urged

that the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses have withstood the

test of cross-examination, hence the Learned Trial Court was in

error in arriving at the finding that due to differences between the

Respondent and the victim on account of a debt owed by her to the

Respondent, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled

out. That, this observation was based solely on the evidence of the

Defence Witnesses. That, in his responses under Section 313

Cr.P.C., the Respondent merely denied having committed the

offence but did not explain the circumstances of his presence in the

victim?s house. Hence, the impugned Judgment be set aside and

the Respondent be convicted of the offences that he was booked

under.

3.

Resisting

the

arguments

of

the

Learned

Public

Prosecutor, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent submitted

that it is the bounden duty of the Prosecution as per law, to prove

its case beyond a reasonable doubt, however, no incriminating

1 (2020) 10 SCC 573

2 (2011) 10 SCC 192

Crl. A. No.09 of 2020 3

State of Sikkim vs. Jigmee Bhutia

evidence has emerged against the Respondent. That, P.W.7, the

D