DILIP BARUA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction dated 21.2.2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 79(JJ)2011 convicting the accused appellant under Section 376/511 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for further 6(six) months.

(2.) I have heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae and so also Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned APP, Assam. Referring to the evidence on record Mr. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there being reasonable doubt about the motive behind the lodging of the FIR, falsely implicating the accused appellant, it is a fit case for interference with the impugned judgement of conviction. On the other hand, Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned APP, Assam, submits that the evidence being overwhelming towards establishing the offence against the accused appellant and the learned Trial Court having convicted him on that basis, this is not a case for interference with the said judgement.

(3.) UPON submission of the charge sheet, charge was framed and the case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, trial started there upon registering Sessions Case No. 79(JJ)2011. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses including the victim. The victim (PW-1) in her deposition categorically stated about the incident and in the cross examination she could not be confronted with the statement made in chief. Similarly, other witnesses also narrated the incident in their deposition. PW-2 is the husband of the victim, who was absent when the incident occurred. On his return home the victim informed him about the incident. He in his deposition stated that on getting the information from his wife, he had gone to the accused but he chased him away and somehow he could save himself. PW-3 is the Village Defence Secretary of the Titabor Bogargaon. He in his deposition stated about the visit of the PW-1 to the Police Station where he was present and lodging of the FIR by her. He also testified that the accused appellant was released only a few days back from jail and after coming out of the jail, he committed the said further offence.