Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 472 (GAU)

Lokeswar Sonowal v. State of Assam

2019-04-11

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. S Nagrin, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Z Alam. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. PP for the State/respondent. 2. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2010 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 4 (1)/2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur whereby the learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in GR Case No. 808/2008 convicting the accused/petitioner u/s 448/354/323 of IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days for offence u/s 448 of IPC; to undergo RI for 6 (six) months for offence u/s 354 of IPC and to undergo RI for 3 (three) months for offence u/s 323 of IPC. 3. The case in a nutshell is that one Smti. Sajina Sonowal of Sensuwa under Baginadi PS lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Baginadi on 23.04.2008 alleging that on 22.06.2008 at about 3 P.M Sri Lokeswar Sonowal (present accused petitioner) entered into her house in the absence of her husband, outraged her modesty as a result of which her wearing cloths was torn and thereafter she reported the matter to her husband. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, Baginadi PS case No. 87/2008 u/s 448/354/427 of IPC was registered against the accused petitioner and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 448/354/323/427 of IPC and the same was registered as GR Case No. 808/2008. 5. The accused petitioner faced the trial and denied the charge that was leveled against him in the aforesaid sections of law. 6. During the course of trial, prosecution examine 7 witnesses including the informant and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court found and held the accused/petitioner guilty and convicted him as aforesaid by judgment and order dated 11.01.2010. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused/petitioner preferred the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur and the same was registered as Crl. Appeal No. 4 (1)/2010 and the learned appellate Court also upheld the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its order dated 03.05.2010. 8. 7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the accused/petitioner preferred the appeal before the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur and the same was registered as Crl. Appeal No. 4 (1)/2010 and the learned appellate Court also upheld the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its order dated 03.05.2010. 8. Challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order, present revision has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the matter in proper perspective of law and testimony of the victim is not supported by relevant witnesses that has been examined by prosecution including her husband. Further, it is also submitted that the learned trial Court has also not considered the compromise petition to compound the offences, which has caused prejudice to the case of both the parties as they being the persons of the same locality and married persons, has already settled the matter. 9. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State and also gone through the evidence on record. 10. On perusal of the evidence on record, it will go to show that the informant/victim in her evidence has categorically stated that the accused/petitioner went to her house on the fateful day and on the pretext of asking for country made liquor and then he touched her private part and breast and outraged her modesty. According to her, when the accused entered in her house, her husband was taking tea with her and only after husband had left, the accused embraced her as stated above. Her testimony varied during the course of trial as that was narrated in the FIR. While she disclosed in the FIR that her husband was present at that time when the accused asked for water and subsequently in course of trial she has stated that only after her husband left home the incident had happened. From the revealment of her statement, it also emerges that the accused asked for country made liquor from her which indicates that she runs such business in her house. 11. Her husband was reported by her on his return and the evidence of PW-2 has not supported the case of the informant in all details. His evidence is cryptic and silent about the injury so sustained by his wife. 12. 11. Her husband was reported by her on his return and the evidence of PW-2 has not supported the case of the informant in all details. His evidence is cryptic and silent about the injury so sustained by his wife. 12. On the other hand, other witnesses PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 were the neighbouring people and they were told by the informant that the accused has torn her blouse and did not narrate the entire incident to them. It is not stated properly as to why such incident was not properly explained to those witnesses by the informant, if such serious incident has occurred to her, which raise a serious question mark to the authenticity of the evidence of the victim as to whether any such serious incident has happened to her? 13. In his evidence, medical officer although found some marks of injury on her breast vide ext-3 but he has also stated that such an injury may be sustained from her husband also. 14. Further, it appears that being a person from the locality accused went to the home of the informant, without any overact. None of the witnesses has seen the accused person in house of PW-2 and nothing happened in presence of her husband/ PW-2. 15. It is to be noted that on the basis of such evidence, the trial Court has rendered conviction upon the accused petitioner without appreciating the entire evidence on record, facts and circumstances and inconsistencies in her evidence. The appellate Court has also re-affirmed such order of conviction without proper elaboration and has relied upon the decision of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the discrepancies in her evidence and that witnesses failed to corroborate evidence of victim in proper manner. 16. It was disclosed by the informant that because of such incident her husband has not co-operated with her, which indicates that her husband was not convinced about the story. In the circumstances, prosecution cannot claim that the offences have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, both the parties also approached the learned appellate Court with a compromise petition with permission to compound but same was rejected by the learned appellate Court. In the circumstances, prosecution cannot claim that the offences have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, both the parties also approached the learned appellate Court with a compromise petition with permission to compound but same was rejected by the learned appellate Court. But in my considered opinion such an offence can be allowed to be compounded in the facts and circumstances of the case while both the parties are mature and married person, having their liabilities and they want to live in the mainstream of the society. Such a compromise obviously indicates that the victim has abandoned grievances, against the accused petitioner. 17. In view of all matters on record and the discussion above, the impugned order dated 03.05.2010 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 4(1)/2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur and trial Court judgment is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused petitioner is acquitted and set at liberty forthwith. Return the LCR along with a copy of judgment.