NIMAN SONOWAL Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the judgment and order, dated 19.7.2001, passed in Sessions Case No. 131/2000, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat, the accused -appellant stands convicted under Sections 376 and 417, IPC and sentenced to suffer, for his conviction under Section 376 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000 and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months and also suffer, for his conviction under Section 417, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described, thus : RB is daughter of PW1 and PW2 and the accused is one of their neighbourers. When RB was aged about 14 years and a student of class VII, the accused started an affair with her by promising to marry her. In the month of January 1998, the accused came to the house of RB and, on finding her alone at home, attempted to have sexual intercourse with her; when RB refused, the accused assured her that if anything would go wrong, he would marry her. On the basis of the promise for marriage made by the accused, RB allowed the accused to have sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the accused had occasionally sexual intercourse with her at her house and also in the field, where she took her catties to tend. In consequence of such sexual intercourse, RB became pregnant and when she was carrying pregnancy of one month, the accused gave her some medicines. As the medicines did not succeed in causing abortion, the accused gave some more medicines. The medicines, however, had no effect and when RB entered into the third month of her pregnancy, the accused disclosed the fact of RB's pregnancy to his sister -in -law. PW2 ( mother, of RB), was also informed about the pregnancy, whereupon the accused took RB along with her mother and sister -in -law to Bokajan hospital for abortion. At the hospital, the accused admitted before PW2 that RB had conceived through him. As the doctor, at the hospital, demanded Rs. 700 for causing abortion and neither the accused nor the family members of RB had such sum of money, they came back home on the basis of a promise made by the accused that he would arrange money and dp the needful. The accused, thereafter, disappeared and RB gave birth to a female baby. PW1 (father of RB), lodged an FIR with the police. A case under Section 376 IPC was accordingly registered against the accused and the victim was medically examined. On completion of the investigation, police laid charge -sheet against the accused under Sections 376/212 IPC.

(3.) IN support of their case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. The defence also adduced evidence by examining two witnesses. Having found the accused guilty of both the offences, the learned trial court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as already mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused has preferred the present appeal.