ABDUL HOQUE Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant from Jail against the Judgment & Order dtd. 7/5/2018 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Siaha in S.R No. 6/2018 convicting him under Sec. 448/376(1) r/w 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sec. 3 of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 (BEFR) and also against the Order of Sentence dtd. 8/5/2018 sentencing him to simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months under Sec. 448 IPC with fine of Rs.1,000.00, with a default clause rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 (eight) years with a fine of Rs.10,000.00 under Sec. 376(1) r/w 511 IPC with a default clause and simple imprisonment for 6 (six) days and fine of Rs.500.00 under Sec. 3 of BEFR with a default clause. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 11/9/2017 at around 2:00 AM, a written FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix stating that at around 1:00 AM, the appellant entered her house from the broken skirting of her rented house and he caressed her body and touched her breast. The officer-in-charge of Siaha Police Station therefore registered Siaha P.S Case No. 99/2017 dtd. 11/9/2017 under Sec. 451/354 IPC r/w Sec. 3 of the BEFR and endorsed the case to the appointed Investigating Officer (I.O) for investigation. During the investigation, the I.O visited the place of occurrence and she drew a rough sketch map of the place, examined witnesses and recorded their statements including the complainant. Upon concluding her investigation, the I.O found a prima facie case well established against the accused person under Sec. 448/376(1)/511 IPC r/w Sec. 3 of BEFR and submitted the charge-sheet before the Court. After the charge-sheet was received by the Court, charge was framed against the accused under Sec. 448/376(1) r/w Sec. IPC and under Sec. 3 of the BEFR on 21/2/2018 and to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Accordingly, trial was conducted against the accused and in the process, the prosecution examined as many as 4 (four) prosecution witnesses. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the accused examined 1 (one) defence witness. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order convicting the appellant and sentencing him in the manner already indicated herein above. Being highly aggrieved with the same, he has filed the instant appeal from Jail.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly the prosecutrix herself, there is no evidence of commission of rape upon the prosecutrix. In fact, there was neither an attempt nor an intention on the part of the appellant to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. He submits that had there really been an intention, the appellant would not have stopped when the prosecutrix awoke from her sleep. Referring to the evidence of the sole defence witness, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that the prosecutrix used to visit the appellant in his workplace to ask him to buy liquor for her. Therefore, it is clear that there was an unnatural relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix.