SUNIL KANGARIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28-9- 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Biswanath Chariali in Sessions Case No. 32/2006 convicting the accused appellant under Section 451/376, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 451, IPC and further sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Section 376, IPC.

(2.) THE convict appellant has presented this appeal before this Court u/S. 374(2) of the Cr. P.C. 1973. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 20-3-2005 at 2.30 p.m. one Sri Jairam Gore lodged an FIR with Jinjia Out Post alleging that on 17-3-2005 at around 6 p.m. while the informant and his wife was not present in their house, the appellant criminally trespassed into their house and took out his 12 year old daughter (victim) by gagging her mouth and forcibly committed rape on her in the adjacent garden (bari). THE informant on arrival of his house came to know about the alleged incident and filed an Ejahar which was registered u/S. 451/376, IPC. THE victim girl was examined medically on 19-3-2005 and her statement was recorded u/S. 164, Cr. P.C. by a Magistrate. On completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Sonitpur at Tezpur which was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Biswanath Chariali for disposal. On consideration of the materials collected by the Police, the learned trial Court framed charge u/S. 376/451, IPC. On being read over and explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. THE prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to establish the case while the defence examined only one witness. THE learned trial Court on the basis of the materials and evidence on record and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant as indicated above.

(3.) THE Court is dependent on the evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence for coming to a conclusion. THE Court is required to appreciate the medical evidence on record to find corroboration or to testify the veracity of the evidence of the victim girl. First of all let me have a look at the oral evidence of the victim girl who was examined as P.W. 6. As per her evidence, the accused came to the house of the victim and forcibly took her out by pulling towards the back side of the house where he laid her down in the nearby bushes and committed rape. After committing rape he left the scene immediately. In her cross-examination she stated that she was gagged with a piece of cloth by one hand and pulled by another hand. In cross- examination she denied the suggestion that she did not make attempt to escape from the grip of the accused. She also denied the suggestion that the appellant did not commit rape on her.