BINOD PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in this Appeal seeks to assail the judgment dated 31 -08 -2013 passed by the Learned Fast Track Court, South Sikkim at Namchi in Sessions Trial (Fast Track) Case No.27 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') by which he was convicted Binod Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - (Rupees two thousand) in default of payment of which he was directed to undergo further imprisonment of 2 month by duly remitting the period of imprisonment already undergone by him against the sentence.

(2.) (i). The facts of the case to state briefly is that on 01 -04 -2012 at about 1100 hours one Sarmila Chhettri, the Complainant, had appeared at the Melli Police Station, South Sikkim accompanied by her grandmother, Smt. Dil Maya Chhetri, P.W.1, and reported verbally that in August, 2011, she, accompanied by Tika Chettri, P.W.2, had gone to Turuk Public Health Sub -Centre (in short "PHSC") to get her ailing child checked up but as the PHSC was found closed they had to return home. On the way back they were invited by the Appellant -Accused Binod Pradhan to his house for tea. When they entered the house, they found the Accused Sabita Rai, the wife of the Appellant - Accused, also present there. While at the house, the Accused Sabita Rai claiming herself to be a 'Maata' (pythoness) who had solved many marital discord by use Binod Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim of her supernatural power, invited the Complainant to the house the next morning for her 'jokhana', i.e., to read her fortune assuring her of her reunion with her estranged husband. Accordingly, the following day after getting her child checked up at the Turuk PHSC medically, she went to the house of the accused persons carrying some 'puja samagri' (items for offering puja). That the Accused Smt. Sabita Rai (Maata) while performing the puja told the Complainant that the only way to get her estranged husband to return was to sleep with her husband, the Appellant -Accused, for a week continuously. It is then stated that she was not convinced initially but upon persuasion of the Accused Sabita Rai (Maata) and after drinking a glass of beer offered by her that made her drowsy, she relented and had sexual intercourse with the Appellant -Accused in the sitting room in the presence of the Accused Sabita Rai. She had not disclosed of this incident to anyone but revealed it only on 27 -03 -2012, when her pregnancy was detected at the Turuk PHSC where she had been taken by her grandmother, Smt. Dil Maya Chhetri, P.W.1, when she had complained of irregular menstruation. On being asked as to how this had Binod Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim come about she narrated the entire episode involving the Accused Sabita Rai and her husband, the Appellant. When the Appellant and his wife were confronted, they completely denied the allegations resulting in the lodging of FIR. (ii). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer having found sufficient material against the Appellant -Accused and his wife Sabita Rai for having committed the offences under Sections 376/420/120B IPC, charge -sheet was filed against them for trial.

(3.) (i). During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents and upon consideration of the evidence, the Learned Fast Track Court found the Appellant -Accused guilty of the Binod Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim offence under Section 376 IPC and accordingly convicted as already stated earlier. (ii). The Accused No.2, Sabita Rai, however, was acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubt for want of sufficient evidence to establish the charge against her that she had assisted the Appellant -Accused No.1 in the commission of the offence of cheating the Complainant/victim by pretending to be a 'Maata'. It is against the conviction and sentence of the Appellant that the present Appeal has been preferred.