DIPAK TUMUNG ALIAS PILING Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No. 17 (K)/2005 convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court had acquitted the accused appellant of the offences under Section 379/506 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that one Smt. Numali Hazarika lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Dispur Police Station on 23.01.2003 stating that on 21.01.2003 around 6 P.M., while she was coming from Chaymile to Hengabari in a rickshaw by Borbari Road and while she disembarked from the rickshaw for going to her house located at Hengrabari Milan Nagar, the accused appellant pulled her away and committed the offence of rape on her. It was further stated that as she tried to raise hue and cry, she was threatened with her life by wielding a sharp weapon. She was also threatened not to disclose the incident to any one, or else, he would liquidate her. A sum of Rs. 12,000/-, which was in possession of the complainant, was also snatched away from the bag by the accused.

(3.) PW 1 is the prosecutrix. She had deposed that the incident took place on 21.01.2003 around 6 P.M. while she was going towards her home in Hengrabari by a rickshaw from Chaymile. There was a stretch of road of about 2/3 kilometers where there was no human habitation. She had also stated that the accused got down from a rickshaw and, thereafter, dragged her from her rickshaw to a field and committed rape on her. While she had raised hue and cry, she was threatened by showing a sharp weapon. The accused raped her 3 times and, thereafter, he had left her in an unconscious state. Initially, she did not inform about the incident to anybody, but later on, related the incident to her sister-in-law (elder sister of her husand), who was examined as PW 3 and her son, who was examined as PW 2. It was only therafter that she came to lodge an ejahar, which was exhibited by her as Ext.1. PW 1 also had proved her statement before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 CrPC as Ext. 2. She had also deposed that the accused had also taken away Rs. 12, 000/- from her bag. She stated that out of fear of the accused, she had left her previous place of residence immediately after the occurrence.