Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1209 (GAU)

Ranjit Tanti v. State of Assam

2019-11-08

MIR ALFAZ ALI, NANI TAGIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant and Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 37(T)/2017. By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376(D) IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default stipulation. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 09.02.2017 at about 12.30 A.M. the appellants Ranjit Tanti, Khagen Tanti and Jiskel Murah had taken away the wife of the informant to the river bank on the pretext of curing her fertility problem. The appellant compelled the victim to consume country liquor, ganja and blood of a cock and when she became intoxicated, all the appellants tied her hands and committed rape on her one by one. The husband of the victim lodged the FIR (Exhibit-10), on the basis of which police registered Bordubi P.S. Case No. 14/2017 under section 376(G)/34 IPC and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under section 376-B. 4. In course of trial, learned Sessions Judge framed charge under section 376(D) IPC against all the three accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty. In order to bring home the charge prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses. On appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under section 376(D) IPC and awarded sentence as indicated above. 5. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradiction on materials facts and as such learned Sessions Judge ought not to have convicted the appellants on such unreliable evidence. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contends that the testimonies of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the appellants and there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix, who was subjected to gang rape. 6. To begin with, let us scan the evidence of the victim at the outset who has been examined as PW-1. 7. The PW-1 deposed in her evidence that as she was feeling dizziness, her husband took her to the appellants, who were quacks by profession. The appellants took her to the river bank, where the appellants fixed her hands with the earth by using some clamp like materials. Thereafter, they unclothed her and committed rape on her one after another. 7. The PW-1 deposed in her evidence that as she was feeling dizziness, her husband took her to the appellants, who were quacks by profession. The appellants took her to the river bank, where the appellants fixed her hands with the earth by using some clamp like materials. Thereafter, they unclothed her and committed rape on her one after another. She further stated, that before taking her to the river bank, the accused/appellants forced her to consume one bottle of alcohol and the blood of a cock. Though her husband accompanied her to the house of the appellants, he was not allowed to go to the river bank. She cried for help, but no one came forward as there was none nearby. She further stated that she was feeling pain on her lower part because of commission of rape and she was also not able to walk properly. After committing rape, the accused persons allowed her to put on her clothes and bring her back to the house. After coming home, she reported the incident to her aunt Dukuni Murah (PW-4). Thereafter FIR was lodged by her husband. During cross-examination she stated, that initially she was taken to the house of the appellants at about 9.00PM and the accused persons asked her husband to bring one bottle of liquor and one cock. Accordingly, her husband went to the market and came back with those articles at about 12.00'o clock at night and left her in the house of the appellants. She stated in cross-examination that at the beginning, the appellants performed some "puja" in the river bank. According to her, the appellants forced her to consume liquor and the blood of cock and after consuming those articles she became unconscious and later on she regained her consciousness at home. She further stated that after the occurrence the accused persons themselves brought her to her residence at about 3.00 A.M. and during the next two days she did not tell the members of her family about the occurrence. However, she stated to have disclosed about the occurrence only to Dukuni Murah (PW-4). During cross- examination she admitted to have not stated before police or the Magistrate, that she informed Dukuni Murah about the occurrence. However, she stated to have disclosed about the occurrence only to Dukuni Murah (PW-4). During cross- examination she admitted to have not stated before police or the Magistrate, that she informed Dukuni Murah about the occurrence. She further stated that, after consuming liquor and ganja she lost her consciousness and till reaching home, she was not aware as to what had happened to her in the intervening period. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim narrated a different story; wherein she stated that she was taken to the house of the appellants at about 8.00 P.M. by her husband, who came back leaving her in the house of the appellants and thereafter the appellants took her to the river bank. The appellants asked her to remove all her clothes and to take a bath in the river. Accordingly, she removed all her wearing apparels and took bath in the river and thereafter the appellants performed some "puja" and made her consume ganja, liquor and bhang and after consuming all those articles she became unconscious and fell on the ground. Then the appellants forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her one by one. After committing the offence, the appellants brought her to her house, where also, they again performed some "puja" and left the place. After regaining consciousness she told everything to her aunt Minu Kharia. 8. PW-2 the husband of the victim stated, that the accused persons took his wife alone and did not allow him to go to the river, stating that he had committed sin and at about 3.00 A.M. the accused persons brought back his wife. He further deposed that when the appellants came back with his wife, he served them with Kichdi. He further stated that when his wife came back, he noticed that she was not able to walk properly and on the next day the victim narrated the incident to his aunt Dukuni Murah (PW-4). He stated during examination-in-chief that he had come to know from his wife that the appellants committed rape on her. Whereas, during cross-examination he stated that his wife never told him directly that the accused had committed rape on her. This witness also did not state before police, that when his wife came back, she was not able to walk properly. 9. Whereas, during cross-examination he stated that his wife never told him directly that the accused had committed rape on her. This witness also did not state before police, that when his wife came back, she was not able to walk properly. 9. PW-3 the mother-in-law of the victim deposed, that her son (PW-2) took the victim to the house of the appellants and she also accompanied them, where the appellants told, that the victim was suffering from certain ailments and advised for performing puja on the river bank. She also stated that the appellants took her to the river bank and they were not allowed to go to the river bank, rather, the appellants threatened them, that if they go to the river bank, they will be assaulted. Later on, at about 3.00 A.M. the accused persons brought back PW-1 and on the next day the victim told them, that the accused committed rape on her. She further stated that the victim told her that she was blind folded and her hands were fixed with Earth with some clamp like substance and she was also forced to consume liquor, ganja and blood of cock. Again during cross-examination she stated that the victim never told her about the rape committed by the appellants. 10. PW-4 stated that the victim told her about the appellants committing rape on her. However, she did not tell her about the place where the offence was committed nor did she tell her as to when the occurrence took place. According to her except having come to know from the victim that she was subjected to rape by the appellants she was not aware of any other matter. She further stated during cross-examination that she did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. 11. PW-6 Dr. Anuradha Borthakur who examined the victim found as follows: "Identification mark - mole just below the right eye. General configuration and development - normal. Mental state - intact. Weight - 40kg. height - 4 ft 6 inches. Teeth - 28, permanent. Abdomen - tenderness on whole abdomen. Breast - tenderness present. Areola and nipples - normal. Scalp hair - present. Pubic hair and axillary hair - present. Menstrual history - LMP on 18th December, 2016. Genitals - normal. Vulval injury - tenderness present in the vulva. Tenderness present on labia majora. Tenderness present on labia minora. Hymen - absent. Abdomen - tenderness on whole abdomen. Breast - tenderness present. Areola and nipples - normal. Scalp hair - present. Pubic hair and axillary hair - present. Menstrual history - LMP on 18th December, 2016. Genitals - normal. Vulval injury - tenderness present in the vulva. Tenderness present on labia majora. Tenderness present on labia minora. Hymen - absent. Vagina - normal. Uterus - size could not be determined because of tenderness. There was no vaginal bleeding. Fourchette - normal. Fossa navicularis - normal. Examination was painful. Injuries on the body other than those on genital. There were scratch marks on face, neck and legs. Vaginal smear was taken for laboratory examination and the supplied vaginal smear does not show spermatozoa. Radiological examination of wrist - fusion complete. Elbow - fusion seen and iliac crest - fusion seen. So, age more than 22 years. Utrasonography - normal study." The doctor opined that age of the victim was more than 22 years and there was also evidence of forceful sexual assault. 12. A dispassionate scrutiny of the oral testimony of PW-1, the victim, shows that her statement at various stages of prosecution was inconsistent and self contradictory. In her evidence in Court, as already indicated above, she stated that initially at about 9.00' o clock at night she along with her husband went to the house of the appellants and the appellants advised her husband to bring country liquor and cock etc and accordingly, both of them came back home. When her husband brought all these articles at about 12.00'o clock at night, she was again taken to the house of the accused and was left there alone, wherefrom the appellants took her to the bank of the river, on the pretext of performing pujas, and committed the offence. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that at about 8.00 P.M. her husband took her to the house of the appellants and after leaving her there, he came back home and thereafter she was taken to the river bank by the appellants. In her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that at about 8.00 P.M. her husband took her to the house of the appellants and after leaving her there, he came back home and thereafter she was taken to the river bank by the appellants. To be doubly ensured as to the veracity of her statement, we also have a look in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. where we find, that she has given a different story, stating that because of ailment, at about 12.00'o clock she was taken to Shiv Mandir, where they met the appellants in the Mandir, wherefrom she was taken to the river bank. In her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that after going to the river bank the appellants asked her to remove all her clothes and to take a bath. Upon her taking bath they performed puja and thereafter she was subjected to sexual assault. But in her evidence, she stated that immediately after going to the river bank the appellants committed rape by fixing her hands and legs with the Earth by using some clamp like articles. Though, she stated that after coming back home she reported the matter to her family members through one Dukuni Murah, Dukuni Murah stated in her evidence that she did not disclose the matter to anyone. She also stated that she had no knowledge as to when or where the occurrence took place. She was only told about sexual assault. Again in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she told about the occurrence only to one Minu Kheria and not to Dukuni. Minu Kharia was not examined in this case. The PW-2 and PW-3 deposed that the victim did not tell them about the occurrence and they could know about the occurrence when the information about the occurrence spread over the village. The victim stated clearly during cross-examination that after having consumed liquor and all other intoxicating articles she became unconscious and she had no knowledge as to what had happened to her till coming back home. Admittedly the appellants brought back the victim home at about 3.00 AM at night and after coming home also they performed some puja in their house and the appellants were also entertained with some snacks (Kichdi). Evidently, the FIR was lodged on 11.02.2017 i.e. after 2 (two) days of the occurrence. Admittedly the appellants brought back the victim home at about 3.00 AM at night and after coming home also they performed some puja in their house and the appellants were also entertained with some snacks (Kichdi). Evidently, the FIR was lodged on 11.02.2017 i.e. after 2 (two) days of the occurrence. The positive statement of the PW-1 during cross-examination that he had no knowledge as to what had happened to her after going to the river bank till coming home, not disclosing about the occurrence for two days till lodging the FIR, and the appellants themselves bringing the victim to her house and conduct of the inmates of the house after bringing back the victim coupled with the different stories stated by the victim regarding the occurrence, in our considered opinion raise serious doubt about the veracity of the oral testimony of PW-1 and also about the occurrence. 13. Learned Sessions Judge, while convicting the appellants, more or less, solely relying on the testimony of prosecutrix, did not take into account her evidence in the cross- examination and the glaring inconsistencies appearing in her statement. Reason given by the learned Sessions Judge for not considering the cross-examination of the victim is that "cross-examination is an unequal duel between an astute lawyer and a rustic" and thereby totally brushed aside the cross-examination of the victim. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge, because cross-examination is the integral part of the evidence. While appreciating evidence, court is obliged to take the evidence as whole and cannot afford to consider only examination-in-chief by brushing aside the cross-examination. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of a witness. If the cross-examination of a witness is totally brushed aside on the ground that the witness was a rustic one and the cross-examination is done by an intelligent lawyer, how the Court would test the veracity of a witness. If the Court brush aside the evidence in the cross-examination, on the ground that lawyer is more intelligent, than the witness and thereby accepts only the version of the witness given examination-in-chief as gospel truth, what would happen to the right of fair trial. 14. If the Court brush aside the evidence in the cross-examination, on the ground that lawyer is more intelligent, than the witness and thereby accepts only the version of the witness given examination-in-chief as gospel truth, what would happen to the right of fair trial. 14. True it is, in a criminal trial for sexual assault the conviction can be based on the solitary testimony of the victim and the testimony of the victim cannot be viewed with suspicion, unless there are compelling circumstances or materials. But it is not the law, that whatever the victim or the prosecutrix says, has to be accepted as gospel truth, without looking into facts and circumstances or serious infirmity in the evidence of the prosecutrix. Law never says that the evidence of the prosecutrix has to be believed notwithstanding the lacunae or infirmity in it and howsoever serious they may be. Before relying on any evidence to convict a person it is the pious duty of the Court, to satisfy itself about the veracity, truthfulness and reliability of the evidence and the prosecutrix of a sexual assault is not an exception to that. It would be a dangerous proposition to brush aside all the infirmities and lacunae in the testimony of a witness brought out in the cross-examination on the ground that a less intelligent witness was cross-examined by a more intelligent lawyer. Be that as it may, having scanned the evidence of PW-1 as indicated above, we find that not only her statement given in Court was self contradictory and mutually destructive, she has projected and different inconsistent stories about the occurrence at different stages of the prosecution and as such, in our considered opinion, the PW-1 (prosecutrix) cannot be considered as witness falling in the category of starling witness to base conviction solely on her deposition in Court. 15. The medical evidence of PW-4 shows that the doctor did not find any injury on the private part of the victim, however, as per the medical evidence as deposed by PW-6, there was tenderness on the private part of the victim which cannot be considered as conclusive evidence of rape. 16. Apparently, it is in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 that they were not allowed to go to the river bank. According to PW-2, the appellant told that they have committed sin and therefore they should not go there. 16. Apparently, it is in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 that they were not allowed to go to the river bank. According to PW-2, the appellant told that they have committed sin and therefore they should not go there. Whereas, according to PW-3 the appellants prevented them from going to the river bank by threatening them, that in case, they go there, they would be assaulted. Though PW-3 deposed that she also accompanied the victim to the house of the appellants, such statement of PW-3 was belied by the PW-1 and PW-2, because according to them PW-3 did not accompany the victim while taking her to the house of the appellants. 17. Thus having regard to the glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of the victim as indicated above, inconclusive medical evidence, coupled with the conduct of the alleged victim and members of her family, after the alleged occurrence and not disclosing about the occurrence for two days until lodging the FIR after two days of the occurrence, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution evidence is grossly inadequate to bring home the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, more so, in a serious offence of the present nature the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the court, that the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. One cannot be convicted only on mere probability. Having considered the facts and circumstances in its entirety, we are of the view, that the appellants are at least entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, we set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and set them at liberty. The accused be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 18. Appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae, we hereby provide that he will be entitled to professional fees of Rs. 7,500/-. Upon production of a copy of this judgment, Guwahati High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the fee to Mr. Choudhury. 19. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.