Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1421 (GAU)

Rasida Begum v. Md. Rustam Ali

2015-11-17

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred against the order & judgment of acquittal vide order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 118(D-U)/2013 including the accused respondent under Section 366A I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also heard learned State respondent, H. Terangpi. 3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal is tat teh appellant Ms. Rasida Begum aged about 17 years lodged an FIR on 06.05.2013 against teh accused Md. Rustam Ali alleging that the accused with inducement took her from her house with a promise that he will marry her and kept her at a secret place and had sexual activities with her since 29.04.2013 till 06.05.2013 and ultimately the accused left her. Having no other alternative she returned home and lodged an FIR narrating the fact before the Panery Police Station and accordingly a case was registered under Section 366A I.P.C. vide Panery P.S. Case No. 32/2012. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/respondent under Section 366A I.P.C. 4. On being committed the learned Session Court tried the case and after examining 7 witnesses on prayer of the defence counsel that it is not necessary to examine further witnesses the Court close the evidence for prosecution without examining the I/O, M/O and one other witness and has acquitted the accused/respondent under charge holding that the victim/appellant is a consenting party to the alleged crime and she is major. The grievance of the appellant is that the Court below has not applied judicial mind while holding the appellant major as the medical officer was not examined by the Court. The findings is equally bad for non examination of official witnesses. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the evidences on record as well as the impugned judgment given by the learned Sessions Judge. Perusal of record shows that as per the FIR as well as the statement made by the victim girl in course of trial as well as statement given under Section 164 I.P.C. also, the victim claimed herself to be minor aged about 17 years and till the delivery of the judgment by the Court there is no other evidence to rebut her statement that she is not minor. Until and unless the medical officer is examined and fortify the fact that the victim/appellant is a major one, the Court could not come to a conclusion that the victim girl is a major one as the medical officer has not been examined. 6. The opinion so framed by the learned Court below is pre-matured and not maintainable. It is apart that the victim girl may have given consent to the sexual act with accused out of love affairs but things to be noted is that she has indicated in her evidence that unless the accused assured her to marry she would not have indulged in sexual activity with the accused. Even otherwise, there is option before the Court to alter the charge as per the evidences on record to give proper relief to the party as there is a allegation that the accused have convi9nced the victim for sexual activities by false pretext. Instead of adhering to proper recourse of law, acquitting the accused without completion of all evidences on record is bad in law and liable to be interfered into. 7. In view of the above, impugned judgment and order so passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions Case No. 118(D-U)/2013 is hereby set aside with a direction to examine all the witnesses and to dispose the matter in accordance with law. 8. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 14.12.2015 to receive further orders. 9. Appeal is allowed accordingly. Return the LCR.