PRAFULLA KUMAR SENSOWA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present one is a nerve-shattering incident of commission of rape on a girl, at the prime of her youth in the hands of an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police with the aid and, in fact, at the instigation of a woman, regarded as his wife, while the victim had been working as a domestic help at the house of the two accused-appellants.

(2.) BY the judgment and order, dated 17. 12. 1998, passed in Sessions Case No. 94/1997, the accused-appellant No. 1, stands convicted under Section 376 and 323 IPC and sentenced to suffer, for his conviction under Section 376 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years and also suffer, for his conviction under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently with further direction that the fine shall, if realised, be given to the victim. By the judgment and order aforementioned, the accused No. 2 stands convicted under Section 323 and 376 read with Section 114 IPC; but she has been released on execution of a bond undertaking to keep peace and behaviour for a period of 2 years.

(3.) THE prosecution case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: The accused-appellant No. 1 accompanied by a man, went to the house of the parents of the alleged victim 'k' and requested her parents to send their daughter 'k', to the house of the accused-appellant No. 1 to work as a domestic help and, in return thereof, the accused-appellant No. 1 offered to help 'k' in receiving proper education and also promised to get 'k' married. Happy with the proposal, so received, 'k's father sent 'k' to the house of the accused-appellant No. 1, who used to live there with the accused-appellant No. 2 as his wife. Initially, both the accused-appellants behaved well with 'k'; but the accused No. 2, gradually, started ill-treating 'k'. After 'k' had spent more than one month, at the house of the two accused, one day, i. e. , on 04. 07. 96, 'k', having cooked food in the evening, laid the food on the table and when the two accused were having their meals, 'k' was present near them. At that time, accused No. 2 asked 'k' if she would give them a child. When 'k' expressed unwillingness to agree to such a sinful proposal, accused No. 2 pushed 'k' towards accused No. 1 and asked him to do whatever he wanted. The accused No. 1, then, forcibly carried 'k' to their bed-room and threw her on the bed. While 'k' was struggling to free herself and shouted for help, she was gagged and the accused No. 2 closed the door of the house from inside and, thereafter, the accused No. 1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with 'k'. During the occurrence, 'k' suffered injuries on her check, chest, etc. After the rape was committed on 'k', accused No. 2 told the accused No. 1 that 'k' might run away and, hence, she must be made to sleep in their room. 'k' was, then, forced to sleep on the floor of the bed-room, wherein the two accused used to sleep. On the following day, in the morning, 'k' started looking for an opportunity to run away from the house and after the accused No. 1 left home for the market, 'k' scaled the wall of the house, went running to a Teacher's Training Centre, located nearby , and reported the occurrence to them. The women, who were present at the said training centre, consoled 'k' and, their Principal (PW 4), then, informed, in writing (Ext. 4), the Superintendent of Police Dibrugarh, about the occurrence. On being informed about the occurrence, police came to the training centre and took 'k' with them to the police station where 'k' formally made a complaint and treating this complaint as FIR, the police registered a case against the two accused. During the course of investigation, 'k' was medically examined and, on completion of the investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 342/323/376 IPC.