MAKRAJ LIMBOO Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10.01.2018, the victim (PW-1) lodged the First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit-3) at Sadar Police Station, Gangtok, alleging that she was raped by the appellant on 17.08.2013, due to which she became pregnant and had to abort the baby on his advice. It was alleged that, thereafter, the appellant assured the victim that he would marry her. She further alleged that the appellant had taken her to his house after a month of the miscarriage in the pretext of changing his clothes and raped her again.

(2.) In Sessions Trial (F.T.) Case No. 15 of 2018 (State of Sikkim v. Makraj Limboo), the learned Judge, Fast Track Court, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok (the learned Judge), on 30.07.2019, convicted the appellant and sentenced him on 31.07.2019 under section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. It was held that the case of repeatedly committing rape on the same woman under section 376(2)(n) IPC had not been made out. The learned Judge concluded that the appellant having committed rape upon the victim could not be ruled out. The learned Judge also held that the victim had explained the delay in lodging the FIR in detail.

(3.) Mr. N. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, challenges both the findings of the learned Judge. He further submits that even if this court were to believe the version of the victim, it would be seen that the act complained of may have been consensual and the FIR was lodged only because the appellant did not marry the victim. According to Mr. N. Rai, the delay of five years in lodging the FIR have not been explained sufficiently.