High Court · 2012

lage. 4. In that connection, the informant called a meeting of the villa gers in order to sort out the dispute between the parties. But meeting could n ot be convened. Finding no other alternative, the mother of the prosecutrix file d a complaint in the Court of learned C.J.M. Guwahati. The said complaint petiti on was sent to the O/C. Khetri P.S. for registration of a case and for doing the needful in accordance with law.

5. Having received the complaint, Police registered a case against the accused vide Khetri P.S. Case No. 75/2004 U/s. 366(A), 376 IPC, started inve stigating the case, arrested the accused person, examined the witnesses, did ot her needful. and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet U/s 376 I PC against the accused person and forwarded him to the court to stand his trial there. 6. Since the offence U/s 376 IPC is exclusively triable by court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate before whom the charge sheet was so laid commi tted the case to the court of sessions at Kamrup for disposal in accordance with law. On the receipt of the case by the learned Sessions Judge, he transferred the case to the file of learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup for dis posal. 7. Having received the case on transfer , learned Ad-hoc Addition al Sessions Judge, Kamrup, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record framed charge U/s. 376/417 IPC against the accused appellant and charges, so framed, on being read and explained to the a ccused/appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 7(seven) wi tnesses including the Prosecutrix, I.O. and Medical Officer, who conducted the medical examination on the victim girl in connection with the aforesaid case on being required by police. The statements of the accused/person was also recorde d U/s. 313 CrPC. The accused/appellant denied the charges, leveled against him. However, on being required, he declined adduce any evidence.

9. The learned trial court upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the other materials available on record, con victed the accused/appellant U/s. 376 IPC and sentenced him punishment as afores aid. However, he acquitted the accused of offence U/s. 417 IPC. It is that judg ment by which the accused stands convicted and punished as aforesaid has been as sailed in the present appeal alleging several infirmities. 10. Heard Mr. M.Sarania., learned counsel appearing for the accused/ appellant as well as Mrs. A. Begum, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. Mr. M. Sa rania, learned counsel for the accused/appellant has contended that the judgment and order of the learned trial court is unsustainable in law which needs to be interfered with by this court. 11. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, (1) there wa s a huge delay in initiating the case and such delay remains unexplained, (2). T here is no evidence on record to come to a finding that any point of time the ac cused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix in his house and (3) Even if one assumes that the accused performed sex with the prosecutrix, all the facts and circumstances unmistakably demonstrate that such sexual encounter was consen sual one .

12. The learned counsel for the accused appellant has further submit ted that there is contradictions between the testimony rendered by prosecutrix o n one side and doctor who attended her on the other side. It has again been subm itted that no independent witness has been examined here though materials on rec ord disclose that several other persons had knowledge about the alleged inciden t. For all those reasons, the impugned judgment aforesaid is required to be set aside and quashed --- argues learned counsel for the accused/appellant.. Mrs. A. Begum, learned P.P.Assam, on the other hand has submitte 13. d that on the materials on record, the learned trial court is justified in comin g to the conclusion that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix. Such a f inding of the learned trial court needs no interference by this court and accord ingly she urges to affirm the judgment aforesaid. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, I fi nd it necessary to peruse the materials on record to come to a conclusion if jud gment impugned needs to be set aside as prayed for by the learned counsel for th e accused/appellant. Here, it may be stated that accused/appellant has already b een acquitted of offence U/s. 417 IPC.

15. There is nothing on record to show that such an order of acquittal h as ever been challenged in higher forum which clearly shows that judgment of the trial court as far as acquittal of accused/appellant of offence U/s 417 IPC is concerned attains finality. It is in that backdrop, we need to consider the jud gment impugned whereby and whereunder the accused/appellant stands convicted U/s 376 IPC and punished as aforesaid.

16. On the perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that most vital witness in this case is the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW 1. In her deposition, she stated that accused Md.Mustak Ali used to reside in her village at a distance of about half a km from her house. The accused was in love with he r for about 3 years prior to the incident under consideration. Though the accuse d did not marry her till then , on the fateful night at about 12 midnight, he to ok her to his house promising that he would marry her.

17. Owing to such promise and due to her previous love affairs, the prosecutrix accompanied the accused to his house and allowed the accused to hav e sexual intercourse with her in his own house . Though she protested his sexual advances, the accused did not pay any heed to such protest. However, the accuse d kept her in his room for the whole night and performed sex with her twice.

18. In the next morning, the mother and the sister of the accused fou nd her in the room of the accused person for which they beat her up and chased h er away from their residence for which she went back to the house of her parents and took shelter there. She told her mother that the accused had sexual interco urse with her despite her protest. In this connection, a bichar was convened but as the accused went underground, no bichar could be held. Ultimately, her moth er filed a criminal case against the accused/appellant. During the course of investigation, police got her examined by t 19. he doctor at GMCH and also produced her before Magistrate for recording her stat ement.. According to her, at the time of alleged incident, her age was about 16 years. In her cross examination, she has also stated that while she was sleeping in her house with her sister aged about 12 years, the accused came there and took her to his house. On the request of the accused, she went away with him w ithout informing her sister or any one else and reached the house of the accused at about 12.30 pm.

20. PW 2, Mustt. Saleha, is the mother of the prosecrutrix ,. In her evidence, she has stated that the accused resides in the village where she res ides. His house is situated at a distance of about a half km. from her house. B ut she did not know if there was any love affairs between her daughter and accus ed person since before the alleged incident. According to her, on the fateful ni ght, the prosecutrix was sleeping in her room. In the morning, she came to know that her daughter was not there in her room.

21. Sometime later her daughter came home and told them that previous night the accused came to her room, took her to his own house and had sex with her there twice. However, in the morning, the mother of the accused as well as his sister beat her up and forced her to leave the house of the accused person. It is also her evidence that the accused took the prosecutrix to his ho use with the promise of marrying her and thereafter he had sexual inter course w ith her. 22 PW 3, Muss, Rashida Khatoon, in her deposition has stat ed that the informant resides near her house while the house of the accused is situated at some distance therefrom. One day at about 12 midnight , the prosecut rix went away with the accused to his house but she returned from the house of the accused as she was beaten by the mother and sister of the accused person. T he victim also told her about the incident. She was not cross examined. 23. PW 5, is Sri Someswar Dutta. According to him, on 15.5.04 he w as working as Officer Incharge, Sonapur Out Post. On that day , O/C Khatri P.S. received a complaint on being forwarded by the CJM, Guwahati. The then O/c. reg istered a case vide Khetri P. S. Case No. 75/04 U/s. 366/376 IPC and he was entr usted to conduct investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited t he place of occurrence and arrested the accused person from the house of his bro ther-in-law situated at Chokomoko of Jagiroad and forwarded him to the court He also examined the witnesses, got the prosecutrix examined by 24. the doctor did other needful. He could not arrest the accused person as he absco nded. But before he could complete the investigation he was transferred. However , he completed the investigation in all respect except collecting the medical re port. The then O/c collected the medical report and after completion of investi gation, he submitted charge sheet U/s.366 (A)/376 IPC..

25. PW 6 is Sri Pradip Kr. Bora. He deposes that PW 5 had already co mpleted the investigation of the case save and except collecting medical report and arresting the accused person. He however, arrested the accused from the hous e of his brother in law and forwarded him to the court. On completion of the inv estigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused person U/s 366(A)376 I PC. 26. PW 7 is Dr. K.B. Choudhury. He deposed that on 17.5.04, he was w orking as a P.G.student and Medical Officer in the Dept. of Forensic Medicine, G MCH . As the M/O of the case, he examined the victim girl on 17.5.04, in connect ion with Khetri P.S.Case No. 75/04 U/s 366(A)/376 IPC. His findings are as follo ws:- (cid:28)Radiological investigation: Shiagram No. 217 dt 17.5.04 (1) Wrist joint: Epiphyseal union of bones around wrist joint is completed. Elbow joint: Epiphyseal union of bones around elbow joint is completed. (II) (III) Shoulder joint: Epiphyseal around union of bones shoulder joint is complet ed. (IV) Palvic bone: Epiphyseal union of bones around iliac crest is not completed. Result of Laboratory investigation: (1) N0 spermatozoa or gonococci seen on the vaginal smear. (II) Velocity test negative. Opinion On the basis of physical examination, Radiological investigations and laboratory investigation of Miss Monowara Begum he was of the opinion that: (1) Evidence of recent sexual intercourse not detected on her person (II) She was not pregnant. (III) Her age was above 18 years and below 19 years. He proves Ext 3 as the medical examination report prepared by him after examinin g the victim girl and Ext 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) as his signatures therein (cid:29).

27. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evid ence makes out the charge leveled against the accused person. On a careful perus al of evidence of Medical Officer together with mother of the prosecutrix I hav e found that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was a girl above 18 years of a ge. So situated let us see whether on the fateful night accused had sexual inter course with the prosecutrix and if so whether it was against her will or withou t valid consent.

28. On the perusal of evidence of PW 1, the prosecutrix I have found that according to PW 1, on the night in question, the accused came to her house and took her to his residence and had sex with her on two occasions on that nig ht. However, in the morning, the mother and sister of the accused discovered her in the house of accused person fow which she was beaten up badly and was thrown out of the house of the accused person. 29. This evidence of PW 1 finds corroboration from the testi mony of PW 2, informant PW 3 as well as averments made in Ext 1 the FIR. There i s nothing on record to disbelieve above claim made by the aforesaid PWs. When the evidence of PW 1 is considered together with other evidence on record, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that on the fateful night the accused took the victim from her house, took her to his own house and had sex with her a t his house.

30. .Now I need to know if such sexual encounter with the accu sed person was consensual one or was done against the will of or without the con sent prosecutrix. The prosecutrix claimed that the accused promised to marry her and believing such promise to be genuine one, she allowed the accused to have s ex with her. However, such a claim has already been adjudicated upon by the tr ial court and acquitted the accused of offence U/s 417 IPC. Being so, this court in this appeal cannot reopen such a close chapter. 31. On perusing the evidence more and more, I have found that on the fateful night the prosecutrix left her housed and that too without informing any one of her family members not even her sister who was sleeping with her in the same room on that night. Record also reveals that she travelled almost half of a kilometer with the accused person to reach his house but without raising an y protest any point of time.

32. Equally important, she did not inform the family members of the accused person about her being brought to the residence of accused person or her being subjected to sex against her will in the house of the accused person on t hat night. Rather she chose to keep silent till next day morning and till she wa s discovered by family members of the accused person when she was badly beaten b y the mother and sister of the accused person before being thrown out from his r esidence.

33. These are all very empathic demonstration to the fact that on the night in question the prosecutrix not only left her house on her own volitio n but she had consented to have sex with the accused person. The fact that she r evolted against the accused person only after she was beaten by the mother and s ister of the accused person doubly confirm the above conclusion of mine. 34. We have already found that the prosecutrix is a woman of above 1 8 years of age at the time relevant. I have also found that she was a consenting party to the sexual encounter which she had with the accused person on the nigh t in question. These very emphatically demonstrate that the charge of offence U/ s 376 IPC brought against the accused person has not been proved and as such, th is judgment convicting the accused U/s 376 IPC and sentencing him to punishment as aforesaid is liable to be set aside. 35. he accused of offence U/s. 376 IPC. The accused is set at liberty forthwith. 36. Consequently, the judgment impugned is set aside on acquitting t LCR be returned forthwith.