NAGEN BHARALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 26-71994 passed by AddI. Sessions Judge. Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 52(J-J) of 1991 thereby holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2) IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2.000/ - each or in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one year.

(2.) Prosecution case Stated in brief was that on 24-11-1989 prosecutrix Padmabat, was returning home in village Thakurbari from Sukansuti village along with her- younger brother Ramesh. It was around 2 P.M. she was hardly about 1/2 mile away from village Sukansuti when her younger brother Ramesh feeling motion went to answer nature's call. She look him slightly away from the road in the jungle and kept waiting for her brother at a short distance away. While she was so waiting accused appellant No. 1. Nagen who was having a kukri approached her and asked where she was Bound for while so asking he held her and dragged her she shouted Marilu. Marilu. But who was there in jungle to respond to her call it was a cry in wilderness. She was slapped and held by neck and attempted to be strangulated bitten on the cheek accused appellant Chandradhar also bit her. All the three accused one after another raped her. Nagen was the first followed by accused appellant Bogai and lastly it was Chandradhar Dutta who raped her. She sustained injury on her breast face and also her private part. As if it was not enough accused Gogoi again dragged her and beat her. It is alleged that in the meantime one Dharmeswar came followed by more villagers. She was with out any cloth on her body. Her brother Ramesh who had gone to answer the natures call had seen the accused dragging his sister in the jungle he also heard her cries and saw the other accused coming there. Seeing all this he ran to his house and narrated the entire story to his brother returning to the place of occurrence with one Kalal Sarma only to find his sister weeping holding a tree. The accused persons were not to be found there. All of them came to the police station where a report was lodged on the basis of which a case under Section 377 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. She was examined by P.W. 11 Dr. Kamal Morang the Medical officer at Bangaon State Dispensary who found the following injuries: Teeth mark on both sides of the cheek and both sides of the breast semen on the perineum semen in the vaginal canal. On completion of investigation the accused were charged and tried for the above offence their defence at the time of trial as can be gathered from the Statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was one of the complete denial of the prosecution case. The trial Court however found them guilty and sentenced them as noted above, hence this appeal.

(3.) Mr. J.M. Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following points: (i) That the evidence on record does not support appellants conviction as recorded by the trial Court the medical evidence its discrepant and does not afford any corroboration the teeth mark and bruises as found on the body of the victim of not fully described. No reason is assigned for the opinion given by the Doctor. The report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory and the expert evidence of P.W. 13 Smt. Arunima Baruah demolishes the prosecution case inasmuch as spermatozoa was detected from the wearing apparels sent for chemical examination; The evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 3 and her brother P.W. 8 suffers from inherent contradiction rendering their testimony wholly unreliable for sustaining conviction as recorded by the trial Court.