PROMOD DAS PATHAK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned judgment and order, dated 5-6-2004, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, barpeta, in Sessions Case No. 5 (B)/1993, the accused-appellant stands convicted under Section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 2. 000/- and, in default of payment of fine, undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is thus : The prosecutrix (SP) used to go, occasionally, to the house of the accused to help his sister-in-law in her domestic works. On 9-1-1992, on being asked by the sister-in-law of the accused, SP came to the house of the accused at about 12 noon and on that day, while the sister-in-law of the accused went to the nearby pond to wash clothes, sp started brooming the house. At that very moment, the accused came there, grabbed sp, pinned her down to the ground, gagged her mouth by a piece of cloth and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying his sexual urge, the accused removed the piece of cloth with which he had gagged sp and, showing her a dragger, threatened her not to scream. The accused further told sp that if she ever discloses the occurrence to anyone or if any case is filed against him, sp and her parents would be killed. Because of the intimidation, which she has been so subjected to, SP did not report the matter to anyone. Even after she had conceived as a result of the forcible sexual intercourse, which the accused had with her, she did not report the matter to anyone; but when she was carrying pregnancy of 71/2 months, she was no longer in a position to conceal the fact of her pregnancy and, therefore, disclosed to her parents about what the accused had done to her. Her parents called a "mel" (i. e. , sitting of the elders of the village for resolution of disputes); but the co-villagers of SP could not obtain any relief for her. She, then, lodged a complaint with the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. A learned Judicial Magistrate, after holding an inquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. , committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) TO the charge framed under Section 376 of the I. P. C. at the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313, Cr. P. C. In his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. On finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 376, I. P. C. , the learned trial Court convicted the accused accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused has preferred this appeal.