MAHESH CHETTRI Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant herein, aged about twenty-four years, was convicted for having raped his maternal grandmother, aged about eighty years. The Learned Judge, Fast Track (S/W), West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, on appreciation of the evidence of seven witnesses furnished by the Prosecution, convicted the Appellant under Sec. 376(2)(f), Sec. 376(2)(n) and Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the 'IPC'), vide the impugned Judgment, dtd. 28/2/2023, in Sessions Trial (Fast Track) Case No.03 of 2022, (State of Sikkim vs. Mahesh Chettri). For each of the offences of rape that he was convicted under, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00(Rupees ten thousand) only. Under Sec. 506 of the IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00(Rupees one thousand) only. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and the sentences of fine bore default stipulations.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant while assailing the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence, contended that, the victim was not eighty years old and hence the finding of the Learned Trial Court on this aspect was perverse. That, the delay in the lodging of Exbt P3 has not been explained by the Prosecution. That, the evidence of the victim's daughter is not trustworthy. That, after the alleged incident occurred at night, the victim took shelter in the house of her immediate neighbour, who however was not arrayed as a Prosecution witness, raising doubts about the veracity of the allegations of PW-2, added to which her wearing apparels were not seized, while the medical evidence indicated no injury on her person. Besides, the Learned Trial Court failed to obtain a psychiatric evaluation of the Appellant, considering that the Prosecution allegation is that the Appellant is a habitual drinker who had assaulted his father in the past and committed sexual assault on the victim. That, the Appellant for the afore cited reasons deserves an acquittal.

(3.) Resisting the arguments (supra) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the Prosecution case in light of the consistency in the statements of PW-2 in Exbt P3, her Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement and the facts duly corroborated by her daughter PW-3 and by PW-5 the person in whose house she had stayed till PW-3 returned home. Consequently, the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence of the Learned Trial Court brooks no interference.