KHIRESWAR BORA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision impugns the judgment and order dated 4. 9. 1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat, in Crl. Appeal No. 11/96, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 376, IPC as well as the sentence passed against him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be stated as follows: On account of financial necessity, the prosecutrix, namely, D, a minor girl, aged about 14 years, used to work as a maid servant at the house of the accused-petitioner on a monthly salary of Rs. 120/ -. On the night of 11. 7. 1993, while D was asleep at the house of her employer, i. e. , the accused-petitioner, the accused came to the bed, where she was asleep and despite resistance offered by D, the accused over-powered her gagged her and threatened to kill her if she shouted and, then, committed rape on her. On the following day, early in the morning, D left the house of the accused, came to her house and reported the occurrence to her mother, Lohita, who noticed blood on D's wearing apparels. When D was crying at her house, their neighbours, namely, Smti Kanmani Chutia and Smti Umeswari Chutia came to D's house and, on query made by them, D reported to them about the occurrence. When D's father, Akan Chutia, arrived home, he too was reported by D about the occurrence. As D was passing through her period of menstruation, no complaint could be lodged immediately. However, after the occurrence was reported to them by D, the parents of D went to the nearby CRPF camp with their complaint, but as the said camp had no jurisdiction in the matter, the CRPF personnel asked D's parents to go to the Court. Eventually, on 14. 7. 2003, a written complaint was made in the Court of the CJM, Golaghat, who, in turn, sent the complainant to Merapani Police Station for registering a case and for submitting a report in final form if warranted. Based on this complaint and treating the same as the First Information Report, a case was registered by the police against the accused-petitioner. During the course of investigation, D was medically examined and the accused was arrested. The accused made a judicial confession, which was also recorded on 29. 7. 1993. On completion of the investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Section 376, IPC.

(3.) DURING trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 376, IPC. In all, prosecution examined 9 witnesses including the Medical and Investigation Officers. The accused-petitioner was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being, in brief, thus : The prosecutrix had left the house of the accused long before the alleged occurrence took place. The accused was innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The defence also adduced evidence by examining one witness, namely, the wife of the accused-petitioner. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charge framed against him and convicted him accordingly. The sentence, as indicated hereinabove, was passed against the accused-petitioner. As the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against his conviction and sentence also failed to yield the desired result, he has, now, approached this Court with the present revision.