Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Session Judge, Khowai dated 19.02.2019 passed in Case No.ST(T-1) 17 of 2014 convicting the appellant under Section 376 (1) IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation and further convicting him under Section 417 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I for one year and fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation. Crl. A(J) No.08/2020.

The incriminating materials which appeared from prosecution evidence were then explained to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr. P.C. The plea of the defence was complete denial of the prosecution case and no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. [5] Learned Sessions Judge, Khowai after thread bare discussion of the materials available on record, convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 (1) IPC and 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay fine as aforesaid.

(ii) Prosecution cannot take the plea that appellant committed sexual intercourse on the victim on false assurance of marriage because at the time of occurrence the victim was at her consenting age and there was no allegation that sexual intercourse with her was committed against her will.
(iii) Her evidence would reveal that she voluntarily left home with the accused and lived together with him at Silchar without the slightest objection and voluntarily participated in physical relationship with the accused appellant. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 376 (1) IPC or Section 417 IPC is not sustainable.
"***** it is not that she has not experienced sexual intercourse. The PW identified his report as Exbt.11"

[25] The evidence discussed herein above clearly demonstrates that accused allured the victim with the promise of marriage, as a result Crl. A(J) No.08/2020.

Page - 14 of 19 of which she accompanied him to Silchar where they lived together for about a month and she was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse. It is also evident that soon after the victim came to know that accused was a married person and he was also having a son, she declined to stay with him. Accused then brought her back to her village and deserted her on the street during night. She took shelter in her uncle‟s house during night and in the following morning she returned home and told everything to her parents and thereafter she reported the matter to police. [26] The question which arises for consideration is that whether in this fact situation the trial Court was justified to hold the accused guilty of offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 417 IPC. [27] Learned trial court held that charge of rape against the appellant was proved because the appellant obtained consent of the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse under the pretext of marriage knowing it fully well that he would not marry her.