Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 87 (MEG)

Aibor Sohkhwai v. State of Meghalaya

2022-04-19

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee; CJ. - This appears to be an appeal filed in the usual course with a prayer on the lips but with little hope. 2. The appellant herein has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant is to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months. 3. The first information report was lodged on April 21, 2014, complaining of the minor having been raped on the previous day by the husband of her mother's younger sister. 4. In a detailed statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the victim who was about 13 to 14 years at the time, detailed how her 'Parit' had induced her to accompany him to his home on the ground that his wife was unwell. The minor girl narrated that en route to the residence of her Parit and Meirit, she was forced by the uncle into a jungle and raped between 7 pm and 11 pm. She claimed that the uncle appeared to have been drunk and had even offered her Rs.200/- and asked her not to speak of the incident to any other. 5. The victim recounted that since it was late at night, no one heard her scream as the place was away from the village and the appellant herein had gagged her mouth. The victim said that she was left with no alternative but to accompany the appellant to his house where she spent the night before returning the next morning to her residence and complaining first to her grandmother. 6. Upon the FIR being lodged, the victim was taken to the local community health centre where it was discovered that her hymen was torn as a result of recent sexual intercourse and she complained of tenderness in her private parts. Both the medical examiner and one of the nurses at the centre testified to the effect that the victim narrated how she came to receive the injuries and clearly spelt out that it was the appellant herein who had raped her. 7. Both the medical examiner and one of the nurses at the centre testified to the effect that the victim narrated how she came to receive the injuries and clearly spelt out that it was the appellant herein who had raped her. 7. In the judgment of conviction of January 29, 2020, the trial court dwelt at length on the initial statement of the victim and how she corroborated such statement in course of her testimony in court. The trial court found that there was almost no dispute that the victim had accompanied the appellant the relevant evening. The trial court recorded the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses, particularly those from the health centre, and came to a conclusion that such evidence matched the victim's allegations of what she suffered. 8. One of the grounds urged in this appeal is that though the appellant herein had indicated in course of his examination under Section 313 of the Code that he would call witnesses, no opportunity was given to the appellant to adduce evidence or to call any witness. 9. On a reading of the appellant's response to the relevant question, it appears that the appellant had casually observed that witnesses would be called. However, there does not appear to be any material on record to demonstrate that the defence had intended to call any witness but was not permitted from so doing by the trial court. 10. The trial court reasoned that merely because there was no eye- witness to the incident, it would not detract from the victim's narration of the incident, particularly since, in course of her testimony, her version came through as being natural and untutored. In any event, no motive of any kind was attributed to the victim on behalf of the appellant herein and no attempt was made by the appellant to establish any alibi. 11. A further point that is urged at this stage is that the trial court did not determine the age of the victim and erred in not requiring an ossification test being conducted on the victim. The appropriate answer to such line of argument is available at paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment of conviction. 12. 11. A further point that is urged at this stage is that the trial court did not determine the age of the victim and erred in not requiring an ossification test being conducted on the victim. The appropriate answer to such line of argument is available at paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment of conviction. 12. The trial court recorded that though the prosecution did not produce any documentary proof of the date of birth of the victim, but the age of the victim was corroborated by the prosecution witnesses and even supported by the medical expert. More importantly, the trial court recorded that the defence had failed to dispute the age of the victim. Further, the trial court perceived the age of the victim to be more than 13 years but below 15 years on the basis of both the oral evidence in support of the victim's age and the trial court's visual impression. 13. Indeed, in view of the fact that the appellant herein did not question the age of the victim and the further feature that no questions or suggestions in such regard were put to the victim or to the prosecution witnesses in course of their cross-examination by the defence, the present attempt to dispute the age of the victim or to indirectly suggest that the victim may not have been a minor, may not be permissible. 14. Offences of the present kind are not committed under bright sunshine or in the middle of any busy place. Considering the fact that there is little doubt that the minor victim accompanied the appellant in the evening of April 20, 2014 and complained of the appellant having raped her and described the incident in such great detail and precision, there was little room for the appellant to wriggle out. The trial court noticed the relevant facts and how the prosecution witnesses corroborated the victim's version to observe that there was no shred of doubt that the appellant had committed the offence. 15. In the light of the overwhelming material against the appellant and no attempt on the appellant's part to set up or establish an alibi, the trial court has quite appropriately found the appellant guilty and awarded due punishment therefor. There is no merit in the appeal. The judgment of conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 15. In the light of the overwhelming material against the appellant and no attempt on the appellant's part to set up or establish an alibi, the trial court has quite appropriately found the appellant guilty and awarded due punishment therefor. There is no merit in the appeal. The judgment of conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The entire gamut of the evidence was taken into consideration by the trial court before arriving at a just conclusion. The judgment of conviction and order sentencing the appellant to imprisonment and fine do not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.20 of 2021 is dismissed. 17. Let a copy of this order be forthwith made available to the appellant free of cost.