CHO MINGUR LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Appellant was the perpetrator of the offence of rape, is what this Court is required to determine in the instant matter.

(2.) Before delving into a discussion on this aspect, the facts of the case are briefly being traversed. On 10/5/2020, P.W.2 lodged a Complaint, Exhibit 4, of the same date, before the Mangan Police Station informing therein that the Victim, his sister, aged about 12 years at the time of the incident had been impregnated by the Appellant. That, he had been informed of this fact by P.W.3, the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) of the area. Based on Exhibit 4, the Mangan Police Station registered FIR Case No.07(05)2020, dtd. 10/5/2020, under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the "POCSO Act "), against the Appellant, following which the I.O., P.W.17 took up the matter for investigation. On completion of investigation, finding prima facie case under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the "IPC ") read with Ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, Charge-Sheet was accordingly submitted against the Appellant.

(3.) Before the Learned Trial Court, the Appellant pleaded "not guilty " to the Charges framed against him under Sec. 511 of the IPC, Sec. 5(j)(ii) and (l) punishable under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 375 of the IPC punishable under Sec. 376 of the IPC. The Learned Trial Court having duly considered the evidence including that of seventeen Prosecution Witnesses concluded that the Prosecution was unable to prove the Charge against the Appellant under Sec. 511 of the IPC, Ss. 5(j)(ii) and (l) of the POCSO Act, but succeeded in bringing home the Charge under Sec. 375 punishable under Sec. 376 of the IPC. On closure of Prosecution evidence, the Appellant was afforded an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and his Statements recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the "Cr.P.C. "). He did not seek to examine any Witnesses in his defence.