SUK BAHADUR SUBBA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant Suk Bahadur Subba is directed against the judgment dated 23rd March, 1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, In-Charge, Sikkim, convicting him under section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: On 30th August, 1985, the victim Bonglimaya Subba, then aged about 11 years who was living with her parents, had gone down from her residence to take bath, wash her clothes and fetch water from the water tap (dhara) and when she was coming back home, the appellant Suk Bahadur Subba met her on the way and asked her as to where her father was and then the victim told him that he had gone to a place known as 17th Mile. On getting this information the appellant taking advantage of the victim's father's absence, caught hold of her by her wrist and took her to the nearby paddy field, laid her on the ground, lifted her lungi and started commiting rape on her. At that time, the victim's mother called out the victim's name as 'Kanchi' from somewhere, and on hearing that voice the accused freed the victim and started going down the hill from the scene of occurrence. As he was going down, the witness Taktuk Bhutia (PW-2) called him back and took him to the residence of the victim and thereafter to the Panchayat Secretary along with the father of the victim and some witnesses. From there the victim and the victim's father went to the nearest Police Check-Post i.e., Rang Rang Check Post on the advice of the Panchayat Secretary. From the Police Check Post the victim was sent to the Mangan Hospital and there she was medically examined. On the next day, that is, 31st August, 1985, the father of the victim Nandaram Subba lodged a written complaint at the Mangan Police Station under section 376 IPC on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded.

(3.) After investigation, the Officer-in-Charge Mangan Police Station submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under section 376 IPC but the learned trial Court framed charge under section 376 read with section 511 of the IPC. After recording evidence and recording the statement of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and giving opportunity to the appellant to produce his evidence, the learned trial Court accepted the prosecution version and convicted him as stated above.