High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. B.M.Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused also he

3. ard Mr. Z.Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 3A. tated in brief as follows:- 4. The prosecutrix, who is the daughter of one Sri Upendra Kalita ,was working as domestic help in the house of accused, Sri Bhubaneswar Patowary . It is alleged that on 6th of Falgun in the year of 1998, the accused had per formed sex with the prosecutrix on the promise that he would marry her. On the pretext of marring her, the accused had intercourse with her on several occasi ons.

5. As a result of co-habitation, the prosecutrix became pregnant. She reported the matter to the mother of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix moth er thereafter met the accused person and when enquired about the incident, the a ccused proposed to marry the prosecutrix. However, subsequently, the accused wen t back from his promise and hided himself in some unknown place. He also told th at he would not marry the daughter of Sri Upen Kalita. 6. Having found no other way out, Sri Upen Kalita filed a complain t before the learned SDJM, Rangia. The learned SDJM, Rangia forwarded the same t o the police for investigation and to take necessary action. On the receipt of the complaint, Police registered a case being Kaya P.S.Case No. 34/98 on 24 .10.98 U/s. 376/493 IPC against the accused and investigation was conducted by t he O/c. of the aforesaid P.S. 7. On completion of the investigation, police laid the charg e sheet U/s. 376/493 IPC before the court requesting the later to initiate acti on against the accused person in accordance with law. Since the offence U/s. 376 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, he committed the case to the c ourt of Sessions for disposal.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, after hearing the learne d counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record ,framed charge U/s. 376 IPC against the accused person and the charges, so framed, on be ing read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and c laimed to be tried. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesse 9. s including the prosecutrix, Medical Officer and the I.O. of the case and in du e course , the learned Trial Court recorded the statements of the accused U/s 3 13 CrPC. The accused denied the charge leveled against him. However, on being re quired, he declined to adduce any evidence.

10. Trial Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the par ties and on the basis of the available materials on record, convicted the accuse d U/s. 417 IPC and punished him aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been c hallenged before this court alleging several serious infirmities therein.

11. I have heard the argument advanced by learned counsel for t he accused appellant. According to him, the judgment of the trial court is unsus tainable in law inasmuch as, (1). there is absolutely no evidence on record to c ome to a conclusion that the accused had ever made any promise with the intentio n of cheating the prosecutrix and having so cheated, he committed sexual inter course with her. (2). the evidence rendered by prosecutrix is full of contradict ions and inconsistencies. (3). there was delay in lodging the case and such dela y remains totally unexplained and (4) the prosecutrix is a girl of about 17/18 y ears age according to PW 1 and she is a consenting party to all alleged sexual e ncounters and such consent was a legal consent within the meaning of Section 90 IPC. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Z.Kamar, learned P.P. Assam, strongly con tended that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and there is no infirmity, whatsoever, in the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Cour t. He, therefore, submits that appeal be dismissed affirming the judgment of the learned Trial Court. I have perused the materials on record having regard to the argu 13. PW 3 is the star campaig ment advanced by the learned court of the parties. ner from the side of prosecution. According to her, she was engaged as a domesti c help in the residence of the accused person. The mother of the accused and his brother stayed with the accused person. The accused told her that she loved her and he wanted to marry her.

14. One day when she was in kitchen and when there was nobody in the house of the accused person, accused came to her cought hold of her hand and to ok her to the bed room and forced her to lie down on the bed. Thereafter he comm itted sex with her. She did not give her consent to such sexual proposal. But th e accused promised to marry her and believing such promise to be genuine one, sh e allowed the accused to have sex with her. 15. Even thereafter, the accused on the promise marrying her perform ed sex with her on several occasions for which she became pregnant. She did not disclose such pregnancy to her parents as accused threatened her not to disclose such episode to any other person. Even when she was carrying the pregnancy , th e accused on being requested by her to marry her, promised to marry her. 16. Ultimately, the accused declined to marry the prosecutrix for wh ich she reported the matter to her parents. On being so informed her father fil ed a case. Police during the course of investigation got her statement recorded by Magistrate. Ext. 2 is the said report which she rendered before the Magistrat e. In her cross examination, she has stated that no village Bichar took place, that the accused had sex with her as if he is her husband. 17. PW 1, is the father of prosecutrix. According to him, prosecutri x worked as a domestic help in the house of the accused person for a very long p eriod. When the incident occurred, the prosecutrix was a girl of about 17/18 yea rs of age. When he came to know that the prosecutrix was pregnant, PW 1 enquire d as to the person who was responsible for such pregnancy.

18. The prosecutrix told him that the accused had sex with her and she became pregnant for such sexual encounters. Thereafter he lodged a c ase with the police through the court. Ext.1 is the said complaint. In his cross examination, PW 1 has stated that the prosecutrix did not work on regular basis in the house of accused person and that no mel was convened to sort out the di spute in question. 19. PW 2, Smti Saraswati Kalita is the house wife and the mother of prosecutrix. According to her, prosecutrix worked as a domestic help in the hous e of the accused person before 1998. At that time she was a girl of about 14 yea rs of age. When she was so working in the house of the accused person, she becam e pregnant. When she asked her as to how she got pregnant, she told her that the accused madeher pregnant. In her cross examination, she has stated that the mot her of accused is an old lady and as such, the prosecutrix was asked to work in the house of the accused person as a domestic help. The suggestion that the accu sed was not responsible for the pregnancy of the prosecutrix was denied by the P W 2. 20.; PW 6 is the Magistrate before whom the prosecutrix was produced during the course of investigation to have her statement recorded. According to PW 6 on 27.10.98 while he was working as Magistrate, SDJM, Rangia, entrusted hi m to record the statement of the prosecutrix in connection with Kaya P.S.Case No . 34/98. Accordingly, he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix which was pro ved as Ext.2. 21 PW 5 in his evidence stated that he has no knowledge about the a lleged incident. On the other hand, PW 8 is I.O. of this case. According to him, on 24.10.98, he was working as O/C Kaya P.S. On that day he received the compla int from SDJM, Rangia. On the receipt of the complaint, he treated it as an FIR and started investigating the case on doing needful. 22 During the course of investigation, he visited the place of occu rrence, examined the witnesses, got the prosecutrix examined medically , also ha ve her statement recorded by the Magistrate, arrested the accused person and on the completion of the investigation he submitted charge sheet (Ext.4) against th e accused person alleging his commission of offence U/s 376/493 IPC. In his cros s examination, he admitted that prosecutrix did not tell him that the accused ha d sex with her in the absence of her mother. - 84 cms(during expiration) 23 PW 7 is the doctor who has deposed that on 26.10.98 he w as working as Prof. & Head of Forensic Medicine, Guwahati Medical College and o n that day ,he examined Bina Kalita @ Urmila Kalita d/o Upen Kalita in connectio n with Kaya P.S.Case No.34/98 U/s 376/493 IPC and found as follows: (cid:28)Height- 152 cm Weight - 46 kgs Chest girth Abdomen girth-81 cm Total teeth-32, all are permanent Scalphairs 30-32 cms long, dark average thick in distribution. Axiallury hairs 2 to 2.5 cm long dark, thin in distribution. Pubic hairs 3.5 to 4 cm long Breast- Developed, healthy with small nipple including downwards/on pressing mi lky secretion comes out. Menstural cycle 28 to 4 days. Flows-average. Last Menstrual period L.M.P. occurred last Falgun month. Genital organs - Developed/healthy. Vulva - healthy. Hymen- old tears present at 3,5 and 7 O’clock positions. admits to finger easily . Vagina- healthy, roomy Cervix-healthy, soft Uterus- Enlarged. Fundus height 2 cms below the xiphoidtip/foestal heart, sound present. Verneral disease not found. Evidence of linjury not found. Vaginal smears taken on 2 glass slides for laboratory investigation, Wearing cloths- she is properly dress. Evidence of struggle not found. Evidence of stains, blood, saliva etc nor found. Nothing abnormality detected. Right writ (A) Epiphyses around the corist Joint were appeared and fused. Right shoulder (A-P) a single foetal skeleton With foetal skull in the pelivis is seen Illiace crest- epiphysis is appeared and fused. Smears did not show spermatozoa or gonococei. The doctor opinied as follows: (1) Evidence of recent sexual intercourse with the girl was not found. She was h abituated to sexual intercourse. (2) She was pregnant and duration of her pregnancy is 32 to 34 weeks approximate ly. (3) Her age was about 18 years. Ext.3 was the report in 4 sheets. Ext.3(1) to 3(4) are is signature (cid:29). 24 Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far a bove evidence makes out the allegations brought against the accused person. On a very careful perusal of evidence of PWs , I have found that there was no dispu te over the fact that during the time under consideration, the prosecutrix was e ngaged as domestic help in the residence of accused person. It is also not the c ase of the parties that prosecutrix did carry any pregnancy during the time afor esaid. 25 However, on further perusal of evidence of PW 3 I have found tha t PW 3 categorically stated that during the time under consideration, the accuse d expressed his love towards her and also proposed to marry her. This evidence o f PW 3 that she was made pregnant by the accused person find corroboration from the testimony of PW 1 and PW 2 as well as averments made in Ext.1 and Ext.2. 26 When we consider the testimony of PW 3 along side the t estimony rendered by PW 1 and PW 2, it would appear clear that the sexual interc ourse which the accused had with the prosecutrix and which made her pregnant, wa s caused by the accused under a promise that he would marry her. The fact that t he prosecutrix did not divulge such episode for a considerably long period of ti me even to her parents and the fact that around the time aforesaid, the prosecut rix worked as a domestic help in the house of accused person, makes such a concl usion inevitable. 27. One more factor has affirmed the above conclusion of mi ne. It is seen from the evidence on record that during the time under considerat ion, no person other than accused had any access to the prosecutrix. The evidenc e of doctor also reveals that the prosecutrix is used to sex. These revelations are testimony to the fact that accused had sex with the prosecutrix. It is also testimony to the fact that such sexual intercourse was done under a promise to m arry the prosecutrix.

28. Now, the question is whether the consent, so given by the prosecutrix allowing the accused to have sexual inter course with her, is a consent within the meaning of section 90 of the IPC. In this context, I may gai nfully peruse the decision of this Court in the case of Bipul Medhi & Ors Vs Sta te of Assam, reported in 2006(3)GLT 585. In the case of Bipul Medhi & Ors (sup ra), this court held as follows : (cid:28) Para-36. When an accused makes a false promise to marry, which he never inten ds to carry out, and induces thereby the victim, so deceived, to have with him s exual act, which the victim would not have indulged in or permitted, had she no t been induced by such deception and, when such act of having sexual intercourse by her with the accused causes, or is likely to cause, damage or harm to her bo dy, mind or reputation, the act of the accused would amount to cheating. Thus, w hen a woman is induced to part with her chastity or virginity, which is the mos t valued possession of hers, the person, who so induces the woman by making fal se representation, would be liable for punishment under section 417 IPC if the v ictim’s having sexual intercourse, with such a person, causes or is likely to ca use harm to her body, mind or reputation, for, in such a case, unless so deceive d, the victim would not have permitted sexual act by the accused. To put it diff erently, had such a victim not been deceived , she would not have permitted sexu al act or would have refrained from allowing such sexual act and, clearly in suc h a case, but for her permitting such sexual act, she would not have suffered ha rm to her body, mind or reputation (cid:29). 29 Coming back to our instant case, I have found that the pro secutrix is a girl of above 18 years of age at the time relevant. We have also f ound that the accused had sex with her on obtaining her consent on the promise t hat he would marry her. But the conduct of the accused is that he continued to h ave sex with the prosecutrix on several occasions on promising to marry her. 30 However, when time comes to honour such promise he not o nly went back from such promise but he did everything possible to frustrate such promise for which the prosecutrix suffered a lot mentally, physically and emoti onally. These are also testimony to the fact that the prosecutrix would not have allowed the accused to have sex with her if she was not got cheated as aforesai d. 31 Being so, I am of the considered view that the prosecut ion has successfully proved the charge U/s 417 IPC and as such the judgment of t he trial court convicting the accused/appellant U/s. 417 IPC and sentencing him as aforesaid invites no interference from this Court of Appeal. 32 In the result, the appeal fails. The accused is directed to surrender before the learned Trial C 33 ourt immediately to serve out the sentence. Return the L.C. record. 34 35 In view of the provision prescribed by Section 357(A) Cr.P.C. th e victim or his/her dependents are entitled to get compensation for rehabilitati on in appropriate cases. Therefore, for the sake of brevity and in the light of our discussions, made in Criminal Appeal No.93(J)/2005 (disposed on 22.12.2011), with regard to the victim compensation as provided by Section 375(A) Cr.P.C., I make the following directions:-

1. As an interim measure an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited by the Stat e Government with the District Legal Services Authority of Kamrup, Guwahati with in a period of two months from this date. The District Legal Services Authority, on making appropriate enquiry would handover such money to the prosecutrix with in a period of one month from the date of receipt of money from the State Govt. . 2. It is made clear that if the District Legal Services Authority, after due enq uiry, arrives at the findings that money aforesaid cannot be delivered to the p rosecutrix for one reason or other, then the District Legal Services Authority, shall refund the said amount of Rs.10,000/- without delay, in favour of the Stat e Government. 36. Let a copy of this judgment and order be furnished to Mr Z Kamar , learned Public Prosecutor and the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, for d oing the needful.