RINKU DEKA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the appellant. I have heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

(2.) The prosecution story in short is that one Miss X (name of the victim is withheld), who was a maid servant at the house of Smt. Jiliki Saikia of village of Nizdalgaon, went out in the night of 16.5.1999 to attend the call of nature towards the backside of the house of her mistress. After few hours she returned home and reported her mistress and the villagers that the accused Rinku Deka (present appellant) committed rape on her near the bank of the river. On receipt of such report from the victim girl Smt. Jiliki Saikia lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Dalgaon Police Station on 17.5.1999. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR the Police registered a case being Dalgaon PS. Case No. 111 of 1999 under Section 376 of the, IPC. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 376 and 307 of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Court of Sessions framed charges under Sections 366 and 376(1) of the IPC and on charges being explained, the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses while the defence examined only one witness.

(3.) Let me appreciate the evidence of the victim girl herself who was examined as PW2. She stated that she was 14 years old at the time of occurrence. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 16.5.999 at around 8 p.m. when she went out to attend the call of nature, the accused appellant pulled and took her to the riverside. In her evidence, she has given elaborate version how she was forcibly raped by the accused appellant and after being raped she was thrown in the water and left the scene. The defence counsel while cross-examining her tried to impeach the clear evidence of the victim girl by putting her questions with an intention to prove that she had consent to the aforesaid sexual intercourse and as such she received no injury on her person, inasmuch as, there was no resistance or struggle on her part against, the alleged forceful ravishment by the accused.