ARMISHAL L. MARSHILLONG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though one or two feeble grounds are urged to assail the judgment of conviction of April 27, 2021 finding the appellant guilty under Sec. 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the main thrust of the argument is against the sentence of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment awarded along with the fine of Rs.50,000.00.

(2.) The appellant was taken into custody, as indicated in the impugned judgment, on September 6, 2009 and obtained bail after three months and two days. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant was required to be set off against the sentence. As to the judgment of conviction, the appellant complains that the survivor did not issue any statement and, in a sense, no case was made out by the prosecution, as a consequence. The appellant also contends that the eye-witness accounts by two young boys, both aged about seven at the time of the incident, should not have persuaded the trial court to find the appellant guilty as there was no other material brought by the prosecution in such regard.

(3.) However, what the appellant overlooks is the rather candid confession made by the appellant under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without any attempt to retract the same. The appellant confessed that on September 4, 2009, when the survivor was alone, the appellant picked her up and took her to a bedroom. He went on to add as follows: