Pema Tshering Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 22 April, 2022

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Sikkim High Court

Pema Tshering Bhutia vs State Of Sikkim on 22 April, 2022

1. The Appellant was convicted under Section 354 and Section 506 (First Part) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"), in Sessions Trial (POCSO, Act) Case No.05 of 2021, vide the impugned Judgment, dated 28-08-2021. By the impugned Order on Sentence, dated 31-08-2021, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for one year under Section 354 of the IPC, with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, and imprisonment of one year under Section 506 of the IPC, with fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only, both sentences of fine bore default clauses of imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved thereof, the Appellant is before this Court assailing both and seeking an acquittal. 2(i). The Prosecution case arose on the basis of Exhibit 1, an FIR, dated 06-04-2021, lodged by P.W.1, the District Child Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 2 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim Protection Officer (DCPO), informing therein that the victim, P.W.9, aged about 11 years, was produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), North Sikkim, on 05-04-2021, by the Police. During the victim‟s counselling by P.W.1, she revealed that in 2019, one 'A.N.' committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and her cousin in his room. Thereafter, when she along with her foster parents changed residence to a place 'C' the present Appellant sexually assaulted her by touching her private parts and kissing her from January, 2021, up to March, 2021. He threatened her with dire consequences if she reported the assault to any person. Exhibit 1 was duly registered at the concerned Police Station on the same date, under Sections 376/506 of the IPC read with Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act"), against the Appellant and the said 'A.N.' jointly.

(ii) During the course of investigation the victim‟s statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") were recorded. On completion of investigation, a common Charge-Sheet was submitted under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the said 'A.N.' and under Sections 354/506 of the IPC read with Sections 4 and 10 of the POCSO Act against the Appellant herein. The Learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) bifurcated the cases of the two accused persons named above and registered the case against the Appellant as Sessions Trial (POCSO, Act) Case No.05 of 2021 and commenced trial by framing Charge under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 read with Section 506 of the IPC. On his plea of "not guilty", the Prosecution Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 3 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim examined 12 (twelve) witnesses, on closure of which, the Appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to enable him to explain the evidence appearing against him and his responses recorded. He sought to be and was examined as his own witness. Arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties were heard by the Learned Trial Court. On consideration of the entire evidence on record the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence was pronounced.

3. In Appeal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the entire Prosecution case is based on the victim‟s statement which however has been consistently improved, from her Section 161 Cr.P.C. to her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and in her deposition before the Court. Her evidence does not qualify as being that of a sterling witness and conviction cannot be sustained on such erratic evidence. Towards this end, Learned Counsel placed reliance on Sangam Rai and Another vs. State of Sikkim1 and Rai Sandeep alias Deepu vs. State of NCT of Delhi2. Learned Counsel carefully led this Court through the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses and urged that the question of the Appellant sharing the victim‟s room did not arise as it is the victim‟s own statement that when guests came to the house she used to share a room with her foster mother. That, her foster father, a teacher was posted in a remote area of North Sikkim and occasionally came home. That apart, it is not clear when the alleged incident took place in view of the variations in her statement, viz., in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement the incident(s) allegedly took place in 2019, whereas in Exhibit 1 lodged by P.W.1, she reported that the incident took place 1 SLR (2020) Sikkim 511 2 (2012) 8 SCC 21 Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 4 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim from January, 2021 up to 30th March, 2021. In her evidence before the Court she has deposed that it was till April, 2021. That, the description of the acts of sexual assault also vary in her statements. As per the FIR the sexual assault by the Appellant was by touching the victim‟s private parts and kissing her. In her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she has added that he asked her to fondle his private part. In her evidence before the Court she has exaggerated her previous statements and added that besides touching her private parts, breasts and kissing her on her lips he also committed penetrative sexual assault. The attention of the Court was also invited to Exhibit 3, the counselling report of the victim prepared by P.W.1 where the acts of sexual assault committed by the Appellant differs from the acts described in the FIR, Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and deposition in Court. That, the Appellant in fact is a permanent resident of another place in North Sikkim and sometimes visited the victim‟s foster mother (his sister) but very rarely spent the night in her house. Considering that the entire case of the Prosecution is based on the evidence of the victim which is neither cogent nor consistent, the impugned Judgment deserves to be set aside and the Appellant acquitted of the offence under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor resisting the arguments of Counsel for the Appellant relied on the sketch map Exhibit 23 and contended that the house which is the rented quarters, of the foster mother of the victim, consisted only of two rooms of which one was occupied by the foster mother while the other was occupied by the victim and the Appellant whenever he visited. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also drew strength Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 5 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 to establish that the Prosecution had brought home the Charge under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC and urged that the impugned Judgment requires no interference. To buttress his submissions, reliance was placed on Damber Singh Chettri vs. State of Sikkim3.

5. The submissions of Learned Counsel which were heard in extenso have been afforded due consideration and the records minutely perused.

6. Although the Prosecution claimed that the victim was a minor this remained unproved for reasons enumerated by the Learned Trial Court in Paragraphs 12 to 17 of the impugned Judgment. This finding of the Learned Trial Court was unassailed by the Prosecution. Further, the conclusion of the Learned Trial Court that there was no offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act has also remained unquestioned by the Prosecution. The only question that falls for consideration before this Court is; Whether the Learned Trial Court erred in convicting the Appellant under Sections 354/506 of the IPC?

7(i). Section 354 of the IPC deals with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. The Section reads as follows;

"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.─Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

..........................................................."

(ii). Section 506 of the IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation and reads as follows;

SLR (2018) Sikkim 783 Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 6 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim "506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.─Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

..........................................................." Thus, the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 354 of the IPC are that, (a) the assault must be on a woman (b) the accused must have used criminal force on her (c) the criminal force must have been used on the woman intending to outrage her modesty.

8. In State of Punjab vs. Major Singh4, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while examining the provision of Section 354 of the IPC and the expression "outrage her modesty" therein, observed as follows;

"J.R. MUDHOLKAR, J.-- ........................................

12. ...................................... ....................... In my judgment when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that act must fall within the mischief of this section. What other kind of acts will also fall within it is not a matter for consideration in this case.

13. In this case the action of Major Singh in interfering with the vagina of the child was deliberate and he must be deemed to have intended to outrage her modesty. I would, therefore, allow the appeal, alter the conviction of the respondent to one under Section 354 IPC and award him rigorous imprisonment to a term of two years and a fine of Rs 1000 and in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Out of the fine, if realised, Rs 500 shall be paid as compensation to the child.

R.S. BACHAWAT, J.-- ...................................

15. .................................... The culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not always decisive, as for example, when the accused with a corrupt mind stealthily touches the flesh of a sleeping woman. She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anaesthesia, she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act; nevertheless, the offender is punishable under the section." [emphasis supplied] 4 AIR 1967 SC 63 Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 7 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim 9(i). On the anvil of these observations, I proceed to examine whether the conviction of the Appellant can be sustained based on the sole testimony of the victim P.W.9.

(ii) In Exhibit 3, the statement of the victim recorded by P.W.1 during her counselling revealed that "Since January, 2021, uptil 30th March, 2021, A.P. alias P.B.A.K. (the Appellant) brother of her foster parent (foster mother), ....... sexually assaulted her (sucked her breast, made her touch his penis, touched her private parts, kissed her lips, neck etc.). He threatened her with dire consequences if she shared about the assault to anyone (he threatened to tie her up and dump her in the water tank due to which she felt terrified and went to the police station herself)."

[emphasis supplied]

(iii) In Exhibit 1, the FIR, P.W.1 has reported that the Prosecutrix revealed to her that since January, 2021 until 30th March, 2021, the Appellant sexually assaulted her by touching her private parts, kissing her, etc., and threatened her with dire consequence if she reported the assault.

(iv) In Exhibit 17 the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, which she duly identified, she admitted in the Court that she had neither stated the time of the sexual assault nor the place of occurrence of the alleged incident. Her statement in Exhibit 17 is as follows;

"I do not know the exact date, month and time however, it was in the year 2019 when my brother S. had passed away and it was just about two days when I was mopping the floor, A.N. caught hold of me and started kissing me on my lips and my chest. He then also inserted his private part (talam) inside my vagina and he also asked me to suck his private part. He then threatened me not to speak about the same with anyone. I then went to my cousin mummy N.K.B. and narrated the incident but, in vain. The day after the incident, A. K. P. B. (Appellant), who is the brother of N. K. B. also kissed me on my neck and Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 8 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim pinched me on my bosom and my private part. He had also asked me to play with his private part. He also threatened saying that he would tie my hands and legs and throw me inside the water tank and false out (sic) the story that she had passed away with her own will. One fine day, after school at around 2:30 pm I went to the police station and lodged the complaint against both P.B. and N.B. Thereafter, I was also taken for medical examination by lady Police Officer." [emphasis supplied]

(v) In her testimony before the Court P.W.9 deposed that "It was on Tuesday but I do not know the month it was till April, 2021 accused (Pema Tshering Bhutia) used to touch my breast & private parts, kissed on my lips & inserted his private part in my mouth and also put his private part into my vagina (objected to).

This incident took place at C., North Sikkim when I was staying with N.K.B. & L.L. (foster parents) & accused (Pema Tshering Bhutia). Accused Pema Tshering Bhutia was staying with us by virtue of his relation as brother of N.K.B. (foster mother). The above offence was continuously committed by accused both during day & night time. I was also threatened with dire consequences saying that if I divulge the contents of incidents to anyone else then he would tie my hands, legs and mouth and throw inside water tank. ...................... Accused also put knife on my neck threatening that if I divulge about incident he would kill me (objected to). I was not allowed to attain (sic, attend) school for the whole week except Monday by accused Pema Tshering Bhutia but I do not know the reason for the same. I was also compelled to stay at home to do household works by bolting the door by the accused from outside. .................... I also came earlier to depose in connection to this case before one Lady Officer. ...................... Exhibit- 17 is my section 164 Cr.P.C. statement but I cannot identify my thump (sic, thumb) impressions." [emphasis supplied] Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 9 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim

(vi) While considering Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 1 it is relevant to notice that the victim allegedly told P.W.1 during counseling that the acts of sexual assault by the Appellant took place from January, 2021 up to 30th March, 2021 whereas in Exhibit 17 the incident is of 2019 and it is a day after 'A.N.' sexually assaulted her that the Appellant also allegedly sexually assaulted her. The Counselling Report has revealed that the Appellant threatened to put her into water tank if she disclosed the incident to anyone, being terrified she went to the Police Station. Her appearance before the Police Station is however only on 05-04-2021 and neither in the year 2019 nor between January, 2021 to March, 2021 thereby revealing a conundrum in the dates of the incidents stated by the Prosecutrix.

(vii) Her statement before the Court that the act of sexual assault was in April, 2021 is contradictory to her previous statements supra. Further, the acts of sexual assault were allegedly committed continuously during the day and night by the Appellant. Admittedly she was living with her foster parents, in such circumstances continuous perpetration of the acts of sexual assault during the day and by night under the same roof appear to be far-fetched and inconceivable besides lacking in details of time and place.

(viii) There is no revelation to P.W.1 by P.W.9 in Exhibit 3 that the Appellant inserted his genital into hers, the allegation being limited to him touching her private parts and kissing her. She has not given specifics about any event preceding the acts of sexual assault nor details of the places of sexual assault to lend credence to her allegations. She allegedly went to the P.S. on Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 10 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim 05-04-2021 and informed the incident to the Police, however did not allege therein that the threat was post the commission of an act of sexual assault on her, on the same day, by the Appellant. As per P.W.9 she informed the Police of the incident but P.W.8 the SHO at the P.S. deposed that on 05-04-2021 when the victim came to the Police Station at around 3 p.m. despite enquiry by one lady constable she did not give any statement to her, he thus forwarded her to the One Stop Centre for counseling by P.W.1. It was only following such counseling that Exhibit 1 came to be lodged by P.W.1 and the case were registered against the Appellant and 'A.N.'. Although in her evidence-in-chief, she went on to state that there were two rooms in the house at 'C' of which one room was occupied by her foster parents and another room by her and the Appellant, under cross-examination, it transpired that one room at the residence in 'C' was occupied by her foster mother and one room with the TV was given to her, but, when guests and relatives came they used to reside in her room while she used to stay with her foster mother.

(ix) It is also relevant to notice that when she was confronted with the contents of her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement in the Learned Trial Court, she admitted that she did not tell the Police that the Appellant had inserted his private part into her mouth and into her private part.

(x) Her statement that she used to regularly attend school when it was open, demolishes her statement that the Appellant did not allow her to attend School for one whole week, besides it is incomprehensible as to how the Appellant could prevent her from going to School when she was under the charge of her foster Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 11 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim parents. It is not the Prosecution case that her foster parents P.W.4 and P.W.5 mistreated her. There is no evidence extracted to establish that she was placed under the charge of the Appellant at anytime by P.W.4 and P.W.5. Relevantly, during her cross- examination she deposed that her natural mother came to the One Stop Centre to see her. P.W.2 her natural mother did not corroborate this aspect of her narration neither did P.W.1 the Complainant. The Prosecution failed to establish by any proof whatsoever that the Appellant and the victim shared a room in the house of her foster parents. P.W.4 shed no light on this aspect nor did P.W.5 (the victim‟s foster mother) and neither did the Prosecution deem it essential to declare these witnesses hostile.

(xi) P.W.5, under cross-examination admitted that when she reached the Police Station the Police enquired whether she had beaten up the Prosecutrix based on the victim‟s account to them. She informed them that the victim was mischievous and had tried to run away from her home. The Police told her to hand over the victim to her parents upon which P.W.5 called P.W.2 and requested her to take her. That, earlier the victim had broken a „piggy bank‟ and attempted to run away, hence their decision not to keep her but P.W.2 insisted that they do. It has to be borne in mind that P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are all Prosecution witnesses but have failed to support the Prosecution case on any aspect whatsoever. P.W.10 the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, North Sikkim, in her evidence stated that during counseling the two Prosecutrixs (refer to Exhibit 1) constantly altered their statements. Thus, on comparison of the statements made by P.W.9 in Exhibit 3 to P.W.1, the contradictions in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 12 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and ultimately before the Court, it emanates that her statements are rife with contradictions and augmentations. P.W.9 has made an incessant bid to improve her case by inclusion of sexual acts not alleged earlier. 10(i). In the light of all the contradictions, it would do well to examine the medical report of the victim Exhibit 12 prepared by Dr. Komal Pradhan, P.W.7 to assess whether the allegations made by the victim against the Appellant stood corroborated by medical examination. Exhibit 12 reads as follows;

"Forwarded for medical examination in c/w Mangan P.S. FIR case No.5(04)2021 dated 6/04/2021 u/s 376 IPC r/w sec 6 & 8 of Pocso act 2012. A prosecution victim was reportedly sexually assaulted by one T.N.B. in the year 2019 at Old Bazar, L.M., N. S. Thereafter she .... shifted along with her foster parents at C., mean while one P.B. of C. sexually assaulted the above named victim thereby touching her private parts and kissing all over her body since January 2021 till 30th March 2021.

Head to toe examination → Multiple old linear abrasions seen in B/L knee limbs.

(1) V shaped linear abrasion over front of Left Thigh = 3 cm.

(2) Linear abrasion over Left (illegible) region = 2 cm.

(4) Linear abrasion over Back of Rt. Thigh = 3 cm.

                  (5)     Linear abrasion calf region = 2 cm.
                  (6)     Linear abrasion = 4 cm fist below Rt. knee
                          joint.

                  Genital examination :
                       Pubic hair → not developed.
                       Vulva → NAD
                       Labia majora → NAD
                       Labia minora → NAD
                       Vestibule → NAD
                       Fourchette → NAD
                       Hymen → torn (Healed margins)
                       Vagina → permits one finger easily.
                       Perineum → NAD"                              [emphasis supplied]
                                     Crl.A. No.13 of 2021                         13

                             Pema Tshering Bhutia   vs. State of Sikkim



(ii)               It is evident that Exhibit 12 lends no succour to the

Prosecution case. Even if the Prosecution evidence of threat held out by the Appellant to P.W.9 is to be taken at face value and an assumption drawn that the threat was on a heels of a sexual assault, the medical evidence indubitably belies it.

11. In State of H.P. vs. Shree Kant Shekari5 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows;

"21. 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. She stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court on facts finds 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 suffice." [emphasis supplied] In view of the vacillating evidence of the victim the evidence of P.W.7 and Exhibit 12 have been pressed into service but both do not fortify the Prosecution case.

12. The reliance by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on Damber Singh Chettri (supra) is misplaced. The facts and circumstances in that case and the instant case have to be distinguished as the evidence of the P.W.9 herein is changing randomly, besides being unsupported by medical evidence. It is now settled law that the evidence of the victim as a sole witness is required to be cogent, consistent and unwavering qualifying her as a sterling witness and her evidence as worthy of reliance. The evidence of P.W.9 fails on the three anvils reflected above. This Court is conscious that minor discrepancies in the evidence of the 5 (2004) 8 SCC 153 Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 14 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim victim has to be overlooked, at the same time the Court is to be circumspect and wary before relying on such evidence to convict an accused. The principle of the Prosecution case being proved beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be lost sight of in the alacrity to rescue a victim of alleged sexual assault.

13. On these lines, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shivasharanappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka6 observed as follows;

"17. Thus, it is well settled in law that the court can rely upon the testimony of a child witness and it can form the basis of conviction if the same is credible, truthful and is corroborated by other evidence brought on record. Needless to say, the corroboration is not a must to record a conviction, but as a rule of prudence, the court thinks it desirable to see the corroboration from other reliable evidence placed on record. The principles that apply for placing reliance on the solitary statement of the witness, namely, that the statement is true and correct and is of quality and cannot be discarded solely on the ground of lack of corroboration, apply to a child witness who is competent and whose version is reliable." [emphasis supplied] While bearing the above in mind, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.9 fails the test of truthfulness and stands vitiated and coloured by inconsistence and wavering evidence.

14. In Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand vs. State of 7 Haryana and Another the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has expounded that the evidence must be closely scrutinized to assess whether an innocent person is being falsely implicated.

15. In Rai Sandeep (supra) the Supreme Court while considering which witness would qualify as a sterling witness held as follows;

"22 [Ed.: Para 22 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./48/2012 dated 18-8-2012.].

In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very 6 (2013) 5 SCC 705 7 (1999) 9 SCC 525 Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 15 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.

There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

16. It is reiterated that the version of P.W.9 the Prosecutrix regarding the offences is generously embellished neither does it bear corroboration even by P.W.7 and Exhibit 12. The Court did not have the benefit of examining the FSL report. The allegation of penetrative sexual assault was correctly discarded by the Learned Trial Court. The offence under Section 354 IPC would require proof of sexually coloured acts perpetrated on the victim by the Appellant falling short of the offence of rape. In view of the above Crl.A. No.13 of 2021 16 Pema Tshering Bhutia vs. State of Sikkim discussions, no evidence of criminal force employed by the Appellant on the victim or his culpable intention is proved nor has any other act suggestive of sex been proved to establish that it was intended to outrage the modesty of the Prosecutrix. The vacillating evidence of the Prosecutrix renders it unreliable and she fails to qualify as a sterling witness. The ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC thus remain unfulfilled. The offence under Section 506 has also remained unproved.

17. Consequently, Appeal is allowed.

18. The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant vide the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence of the Learned Trial Court are set aside.

19. The Appellant is acquitted of the offence under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC. He be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

20. Fine, if any, deposited by the Appellant in terms of the impugned Order on Sentence, be reimbursed to him.

21. No order as to costs.

22. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Learned Trial Court for information and compliance, along with its records.

( Meenakshi Madan Rai ) Judge 22-04-2022 Approved for reporting : Yes ds

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Sikkim High Court