High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 126/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
None has appeared for the appellant when the mater was called up on for hearing, although the names of the learned counsel have been shown in the cause list. The record shows that the appellant’s counsel, on earlier occasions also, failed to appear and the matter has been fixed for hearing on 10.1.2013 a s prayed for by the learned counsel for the appellant. Since it is a long pendi ng case pertaining to crime against woman, I am not inclined to adjourn the matt er. The matter needs to be heard and disposed of. In the interest of justice, I appoint Mrs. R.Boro Bora, learned counsel, who is present in the Court as amicus curiae, to appear for the appellant and assist the Court. 2. Heard Mrs. Rita Boro Bora, learned Amicus Curiae for the appella nt as well as Mrs. B.Saikia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant came into contact with the victim and a relationship had grown culminating in physical re lationship with her. The victim consented to sexual relationship with the appell ant due to promise held by him to marry her. The victim got conceived and gave b irth to a child. Soon thereafter the appellant snapped the relationship with the victim. 4. Having no other alternative, the victim lodged an FIR and the po lice registered a case U/s 376/417 IPC. The investigation was made and after com pletion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant U/s 37 6/417 IPC. During investigation, an attempt was made to confirm the paternity o f the child but it could not be done so as the child expired in the meantime. The case was committed by the Magistrate concerned and the learn 5. ed Trial Court framed charge U/s. 376/417 IPC against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 9(nine) witnesses including 6. the prosecutrix and the I.O. After conclusion of the evidence, the appellant wa s examined U/s 313 CrPC, but he examined no witness in his defence. On considera tion and appreciation of evidence on record, the learned trial Court held that t he charge U/s. 376 IPC against the appellant could not be proved beyond all reas onable doubt and acquitted him of the aforesaid charge. However, the learned tri al Court found that charge U/s.417 IPC has been proved beyond all reasonable dou bt and accordingly convicted the appellant U/s 417 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. 7. I have thoroughly scanned the evidence on record, particularly, evidence of the victim, PW 1. PW 2 and PW 3 are the mother and sister of the vic tim respectively. PW 4 is the younger brother of the victim. All of them as rela ted witnesses have testified that the appellant used to visit their house and a relationship had grown between the appellant and the victim. PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7 are independent witnesses. They have testified that the appellant used to wor k as Manager of a bricks kiln, situated near their house and he used to visit th eir house of and on. They have also testified that the appellant developed illic it relationship with the victim and as a result she became pregnant. The indepen dent witnesses deposed that the appellant is a married person and he asked the v ictim to terminate the pregnancy, but she did not agree. 8. PW 9 is a Medical Officer who was serving as Demonstrator of for ensic medicine at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital. He examined the victim o n 5.4.2002 on police requisition in presence of a female attendant. As per his report, the victim would deliver a child within 1 to 2 weeks. For fixation of pa ternity of the baby the O/C was advised to send the victim along with the baby a nd the suspected father after six months to collect sample for DNA typing but th e I/C did not bring the victim to the department till 31.12.02 i.e the date of p reparation of the medical report. The said Medical Officer proved the medical ex amination report, marked as Ext.3, and his signature on the said report. 9. Although the biological parentage of the child could not be prov ed, the incriminating evidence on record was placed before the appellant at th e time of his examination U/s. 313 CrPC. At the very beginning he was questione d that the appellant had sexual relationship with the victim promising her to ma rry, but he deceived her causing physical, mental and moral damage to her. In re ply he stated that he had committed mistake and he be pardoned. 10. There is a clear evidence that the appellant was a married perso n and during subsistence of marriage with a lady, he established the relationsh ip with the victim giving false promise to marry her. From the conduct of the ap pellant, it is, thus, clear that from the very beginning he had intention to che at the victim by suppressing his marital status. Had the fact that the appellan t was a married person, been disclosed, the victim would not have agreed to main tain the relationship with the appellant at the cost of her life and dignity as a woman. The materials and evidence on record clearly established that th 11. e appellant committed the offence U/s 417 IPC and as such, I find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. Accor dingly, the conviction of the appellant U/s.417 IPC and sentence to pay a fine o f Rs. 20,000/- do not call for any interference. The conviction and sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court stand upheld. 12. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, K amrup, Guwahati within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the com munication from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, failing which the appellant shall undergo R.I. for 1(one) year. 13. The appeal stands dismissed. Send down the LCR forthwith. 14. This Court notes with appreciation the assistance rendered by th e learned Amicus Curiae. She be paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) onl y as her legal fee.