BIJOY MUDOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, for the respondent State. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.8.2010 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Sessions Case No. 126/2009 convicting the accused appellant under Section 376/341 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default another R.I. for 6 months under Section 376 IPC and simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 341 IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 22.5.2009 at about 9-30 A.M. while the informant's daughter was proceeding to attend her school alongwith two other friends, on the way, the appellant who belongs to the same village, intercepted and forcefully dragged her away towards the jungle situated near the public road and committed rape on her. Returning home she reported the matter to her father (informant), who filed the written FIR on 27.5.2009. The police registered a case being Dergaon P.S. Case No. 63/2009 under Section 341/376 IPC against the appellant. The victim was medically examined on 28.5.2009 and her statement was recorded by Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28.5.2009. On completion of the investigation the I.O. laid charge sheet and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Golaghat. The Asstt Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 341/376 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly he stood the trial. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the victim and the medical officer. The appellant examined none in his defence maintaining complete denial of charge. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant stated that the informant brought false allegation due to family enmity on some matters.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the evidence on record. It is noticed that the FIR was lodged by the informant PW 1 on 27.5.2009 i.e. after five days from the date of occurrence which took place on 22.5.2009. The delay in lodging the FIR has been explained stating that as he was alone in family, he first approached the villagers for discussion but yielded no result. This explanation was found to be very vague and not satisfactory. Such explanation of delay in casual manner cannot be accepted. Due to delay in filing the FIR there occasioned a delay in examining the victim by the medical officer. She could be examined only 28.5.2009 i.e. after 6 days from the date of occurrence.