Sonam Pintso Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 28 July, 2016

[Cites 21, Cited by 1]

Sikkim High Court

Sonam Pintso Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 28 July, 2016

1. The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.04.2013, rendered in Sessions Trial Case No. 14 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellant was held as Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 2 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim guilty of offence under Sections 342 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') for having committed wrongful confined of minor victim girl in his house and committed rape on her. Consequently, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 376 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Under the provisions of Section 342 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of fifteen days. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The appellant/accused has tried under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 came into force on 14.11.2012, after the alleged crime was committed.

3. The case of the prosecution relates back to 15.10.2011, when allegedly the appellant/accused inveigle the victim child of seven years old, when she was returning with her brother Abhishek Chettri to home from Yuksom Bazaar around 7.30 AM, to his house for taking back some CDs belonging to her father, Deo Kumar Chettri. The appellant/accused, thereafter, gave some marbles and biscuits to both the children. Her brother, Abhishek was taken to the TV room and engaged Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 3 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim him in watching the TV. The victim was taken to the adjacent room, thereafter, the appellant closed the door, undressed her and forced himself upon her while closing her eyes and month. It is alleged that the appellant/accused after undressing her and himself, tried to insert his genital organ in her genital organ, which caused her screaming. It is further alleged that before doing the act of insertion of genital, he rubbed some cream. This act of his was unsuccessful, he, therefore, applied cream on the anus and tried to insert his genital organ. The child-victim cried out of pain which made Abhishek to bang the door of the closed room. The accused/appellant shouted from the room that "its ok and its over now stop screaming". Thereafter, the child-victim came out and narrated the entire incidents to her mother, Lachi Maya Chettri, who proceeded to lodge FIR in Gyalshing Police Station. FIR was lodged by father of the victim, namely, Deo Kumar Chhetri, on reaching the police station on the same day at 12.00 O' clock, noon. A case was registered as Gyalshing P.S. Case No. 27/2011 dated 15.10.2011 under Sections 376/ 342 IPC, against the appellant/accused. Thereafter, the victim was taken for medical examination to STNM Hospital, Gangtok, wherein Dr. Paras Mani Karki examined her at around 09.00 PM and found that breast was not yet developed, pubic hair was absent. On local examination of private part of the victim, one hair strand was Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 4 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim found which was handed over to the police. There was red colouration of the private part i.e. perineum. There was induration and abrasion. Hymen was admitting one finger and there was small tear in the hymen. No active bleeding was found in the examination.

4. Learned trial Judge, having examined the material witnesses, the minor victim, her brother, mother and father of the victim, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has fully established the offence of the appellant/accused under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, for having committed wrongful confinement of the minor victim in his house and also for having committed rape on her and the appellant/accused was sentenced as aforestated.

5. The FIR was lodged immediately after the incident. The Investigating Officer seized the wearing apparels of the victim and as also of the accused and the same were sent for chemical examination. The child-victim was about seven years old, as evident from her birth certificate, wherein her date of birth was shown as 10.02.2003. She was consistent in her deposition throughout. There is neither any improvement nor any contradiction in her statements. The child-victim in her statement had clearly stated that she had gone to bazaar with her cousin brother, Abhishek to buy jharu (broom). While Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 5 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim returning home, she was called by the appellant/accused, who was identified properly, to his home for the purpose to collect her father's CD cassettes. She was reluctant to go to his house, as she was getting late for her school. However, she was forcefully taken by the accused to his house. Her cousin brother (dada) followed her. He was asked to watch TV in one room and she was taken to other room to search her father's cassettes. In the process, suddenly he closed her mouth from the back and undressed her. The appellant/accused also removed his clothes and became naked. According to her, he inserted his private part into her private part which caused her great pain and she started crying. The accused applied some white medicine on her anus and then inserted his private part into her anus. At that time, Abhishek knocked the door and called her as they were getting late for school. The appellant/accused shouted from inside the room that he was going to finish. In her cross-examination, there was no contradiction and she made it clear that she was not used to go to the house of the accused prior to the incident. Further she remained consistent and there was no inconsistency. Her mother, Lachi Maya Chettri (PW-7) was told the incident by the victim in detail. She was consistent in her statement, stating that when she met her daughter she was screaming and weeping and when she saw her, she clinged her tightly and told Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 6 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim not to send her bazaar in future and further narrated the entire incident. Father of the victim, namely Deo Kumar Chettri (PW-

1), according to his statement, left his house for Jorethang early in the morning at about 6.00 AM in connection with his official work as he was working as a Supervisor in R.M.D.D. at Yuksom since 2004. He was informed by his wife over telephone about the incident. Thereafter, he rang up his brother, informed him about the incident and told him to accompany his wife and victim to the police out post and file FIR. Again, he received a phone call from his wife stating that the accused was being taken to Tikjuk Police Station and told him to come straight to Tikjuk. Thereafter, he reached Tikjuk Police Station and he was told the entire incident of sexual assault of his daughter at about 7.30 AM by the accused. He lodge the FIR, thereafter. He was categorical in his statement as under: -

"............................. At Tikjuk P.S. I asked my daughter as to what had happened to her. The victim told me that in order to go to school she hed gone to Yuksom bazaar to purchase craft (broom) with her cousin brother Abishek Chettri aged about 10 years. On the way back the accused met them and told the victim to collect my cassettes from his home. The accused took the victim and Abishek to his house and kept Abishek in a TV room to watch TV programme whereas the accused took the victim to his bedroom and bolted from inside. The accused told the victim to search my cassette and in the meantime undressed himself and also undressed my victim daughter. Thereafter the accused inserted his private part into the private part of the victim forcibly and as a consequence she shouted out of pain. She further told me that thereafter the accused inserted his private part into her anus by applying some medicine type of cream on her anus, as a result she felt immense pain and cried for help. Hearing the loud cry of the victim, Abishem, who was sitting in the TV rook knocked on the door of the room inside which the accused and the victim had entered. The accused replied from inside that he is going to finish his work and to wait for some time. She further told me that the accused warned her not to disclose the fact of sexual assault Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 7 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim and let her go. I also checked the private part and the anus of my victim daughter and found them fully swollen.

As my daughter did not return home from bazaar, my wife went to the bazaar in search of her and on the way she met Abishek who told her about the taking of victim inside the bedroom of the accused and caused delay. The victim cried out and narrated the entire fact to my wife. At Tikjuk P.S., I scribed and submitted a written F.I.R. Exhibit 1 wherein Exhibit 1(a) is my signature. The Police also prepared a document Exhibit 2 consisting of two pages at Tikjuk P.S. wherein Exhibit 2 (a) is my signature."

5. Mr. S.S. Hamal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that the deposition of the victim is not supported by medical evidence, as the Doctor, who examined the child-victim, has not given any opinion and as such the appellant could not have been held guilty on the basis of sole deposition made by the victim. It is further contended that the appellant has been wrongfully implicated to settle some personal score though it is not highlighted in the arguments. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Munna vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1, it is submitted that in absence of injury, the veracity of the statement of the alleged victim has to be examined carefully before holding the accused as guilty.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms. Sangita Pradhan, learned counsel, would contend that there is no inconsistency or infirmity in the deposition made by the victim and corroborated by her cousin brother, who was present in the next room and

-------------------------------

1 (2014) 10 SCC 254 Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 8 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim also mother to whom the entire incident was narrated by the victim. It is further submitted that there would not be any serious injury, however, the Doctor, attending the victim, had clearly stated that on local examination of private part of the victim, one hair strand was found, there was red colouration of the private part i.e. perineum. There was induration and abrasion and also there was a small tear in the hymen. It was further opined in the Doctor's statement that presence and non presence of spermatozoa on the vaginal and vulval sample could be only on the ground that the person committing the rape, did not ejaculate then and there on her private part or it could be that the victim had washed her private part immediately. It was further urged that there is no falsity in the statement of the victim, who is a child, it is properly corroborated. There is no reason to doubt the statement as a child would not implicate someone without there being any cause.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the depositions and other relevant documents.

9. The case of the prosecution is that the victim, who was seven years of old at the relevant time, was forcefully taken to the house of the appellant/accused by him. He made her cousin brother to sit in the sitting room and to watch TV, they were also given some biscuits and marbles. The child victim Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 9 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim was taken to the next room under the pretext of searching her father's CDs. Then, the appellant/accused closed the door, shut her mouth and undressed her and committed sexual assault, which was clearly stated by her. After removal of her as well as his dress, he tried to insert his genital organ firstly in her private part i.e. vagina and having failed, rubbed some cream, but did not succeed. Thereafter, applied some white cream on the anus and attempted to insert his genital organ therein, and committed the rape. As pointed out by the Doctor, there could not have been any ejaculation, however, there was redness on the private part of the victim. It is not pointed out by the counsel for the appellant/accused as to what prompted the child victim to make a false statement to implicate the appellant/accused. It is a well-settled proposition of law that if the prosecution evidence, taken in its entirety, is convincing, even in the absence of a medical evidence, an accused can be held as having committed the offence of rape.

10. At this stage, it is apt to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court in various decisions.

11. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat2, the Supreme Court held as under:

"11. In view of these factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books. And

----------------------------

2 (1983) 3 SCC 217 Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 10 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. On Principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the courts in the western world (obeisance to which has perhaps become a habit presumably on account of the colonial hangover). We are therefore of the opinion that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming, subject to the following qualification: Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having leveled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self- preservation. Or when the 'probabilities factor' is found to be out of tune."

12. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others3, wherein the prosecutrix, a young girl below 16 years of age, was taken by the accused in a car and rape was committed. The Supreme Court held as under: -

"8. ........The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a

--------------------------------

3 (1996) 2 SCC 384 Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 11 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim victim of sexual assault along to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimony tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain: (1990) 1 SCC 550, Ahmadi, J. (as the Lord Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Bench summarized the position in the following words: (SCC p.559, para 16) "A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 12 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence."

13. In State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. the Accused4, wherein the prosecutrix was a teenage girl and complained that she was raped, the Supreme Court held as under: -

"11. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court of facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. Reference may be had to a long chain of decisions, some of which are Rameshwar, Sidheswar Ganguly, Madho Ram, State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, Madan Gopal Kakkad, Narayan, Karnel Singh, Bodhisattwa Gautam and Gurmeet Singh. We may quote from the last of the abovesaid decisions where the rule for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases has been succinctly summed up in the following words: (SCC p. 403, para 21) "If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations."

------------------------------------

4 (2000) 5 SCC 30, Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 13 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim

14. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and another5, while considering whether the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Supreme Court held as under:

"9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen".

15. In Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh6, the Supreme Court held as under:

"6. It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary. Even if there is consent, the act will still be a "rape", if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, wrists, face, breast, thighs and back are indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault. The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon. There have also been rare instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of a rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case."

------------------------------------

5 (2006) 10 SCC 92 6 (2007) 12 SCC 57 Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 14 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim

16. In Rajendra Datta Zarekar vs. State of Goa7, herein the victim was a young girl of six years of age, the Doctor found the hymen of victim girl was intact, wherein, it was pleaded that the charge under Section 376 IPC as defined under Section 375 IPC was not made out, the Supreme Court, referring to a decision of it in Santosh Kumar vs. State of M.P. :

(2006) 10 SCC 595, held as under:

"15. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the doctor had found that the hymen of Sonia was intact and, therefore, the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC as defined in Section 375 IPC has not been made out. An identical question was considered by a Bench of this Court in Santosh Kumar V. State of M.P., and para 10 of the Reports is reproduced below: (SC p. 599) "10. The question, which arises for consideration, is whether the proved facts establish the offence of rape. It is not necessary for us to refer to various authorities as the said question has been examined in considerable detail in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and paras 37 to 39 of the said judgment are being reproduced below: (SCC pp. 222-

23) "37. We feel that it would be quite appropriate, in this context, to reproduce the opinion expressed by Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (21 st Edn.) at p.

369 which reads thus:

"Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of the law. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. In such a casethe medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been commited. Rape is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the

-------------------------------

7 (2007) 14 SCC 560 Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 15 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity.

Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.

38. In Parikh's Textbook of Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology, the following passage is found:

"Sexual intercourse. - In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains."

39. In Encyclopaedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4), at p. 1356, it is stated:

"..... even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary".

Therefore, the absence of injuries on the private parts of a victim specially a married lady cannot, ipso facto, lead to an inference that no rape has been committed".

16. Here the victim was a very young girl of six years of age and it is quite likely that full penetration did not take place as the accused is a grown up person of over 20 years of age. The injuries clearly indicate that rape, as defined in Section 375 IPC, did take place."

17. In Rajinder alias Raju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh8, while examining the nature of evidence in case of rape victim, the Supreme Court held as under: -

"19. In the context of Indian culture, a woman- victim of sexual aggression -would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the courts must always keep in mind that no self- respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. But for high improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction in the case of sex crime may be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. It has been rightly said that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim can be construed as evidence of consent."

------------------------------

8 (2009) 16 SCC 69 Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 16 Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim

18. In case of Munna (supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, there was serious inherent infirmity in the statement made by the prosecutrix at different stages and also in the affidavit filed by her. In that context it was held as under: -

"11. Thus, while absence of injuries or absence of raising alarm or delay in FIR may not by itself be enough to disbelieve the version of prosecutrix in view of the statutory presumption under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act but if such statement has inherent infirmities, creating doubt about its veracity, the same may not be acted upon. We are conscious of the sensitivity with which heinous offence under Section 376 IPC has to be treated but in the present case the circumstances taken as a whole create doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version. We are, thus, of the opinion that a case is made out for giving benefit of doubt to the accused."

19. Applying the well settled principles of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, as aforestated, to the facts of the case, it is eloquent that the crime of rape, after confining child- victim in the house, was committed by the appellant/accused. The testimony of the child-victim is fully corroborated by other testimonies and also the medical report.

20. Resultantly, I uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court vide impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Crl. A. No. 10 of 2016 17

Sonam Pintso Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim

21. A copy of the judgment with original case records be transmitted forthwith to the Fast Track Court, South Sikkim at Namchi, for compliance and necessary action.

Sd/-

                                                                Acting Chief Justice
                                                                        28.07.2016
     Approved for Reporting       : Yes
jk   Internet                     : Yes.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Sikkim High Court