Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Deo Kumar Rai v. State of Sikkim

10. P.W.11 is the Gynaecologist at the STNM Hospital, Gangtok who examined Ms. R and Ms. S, both on 01.01.2015 and proved his reports (Exhibit-13 and Exhibit-12) respectively.

11. P.W.12 was the Station House Officer (SHO) at the relevant time of lodging the first information by P.W.4 alleging that his elder brother, the convict, had committed rape on Ms. R and Ms. S.

17. P.W.1, the mother of Ms. R, recognized the convict as her brother-in-law. On 14.11.2014, P.W.8 told her that the convict had committed rape on Ms. R. P.W.1 requested P.W.8 to inquire about the matter from Ms. R, after which P.W.8 inquired from Ms. R and confirmed that the convict had committed rape on Ms. R. After that P.W.1 inquired about the incident from Ms. R, reported the matter to the village Panchayat and thereafter they reported it to the Police.

18. In cross examination P.W.1 reiterated her statement about P.W.8 informing her that the convict had committed rape on Ms. R. She also admitted, in cross examination, that she had also noticed that the breast of Ms. R was swollen. P.W.1 admitted that they had reported the matter to the Police after seven days of the incident. P.W.1 admitted of having taken a loan of ₹ 3000/- from the convict prior to the incident and that she had not returned the amount to the convict. P.W.1 denied that the relation between the convict and her was not cordial prior to the incident. All other suggestion made by the defence was denied by P.W.8.

21. The evidence of Ms. R, was amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W.8 to whom Ms. R narrated about the incident. The evidence of P.W.8 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1, the mother of Ms. R to whom P.W.8 narrated what was told to P.W.8 by Ms. R.

22. P.W.4, the first informant and the natural brother of the convict, identified the convict in Court. P.W.4 stated that on 29.12.2014, one lady from his village (not examined), told him that the convict had committed rape on her minor grand-daughter, Ms. S and another Ms. R. P.W.4 further deposed that again on 31.12.2014 P.W.1 also told him that P.W.8 had told her that the convict had committed rape on Ms. R and Ms. S and thereafter as Deo Kumar Rai v. State of Sikkim per the request made by the 'Panchayat' (not examined), affixed his signature to the FIR (Exhibit-5). P.W.4 identified his signatures in (Exhibit-5) and the formal FIR (Exhibit-6). P.W.4 also identified (Exhibit-6).

Deo Kumar Rai v. State of Sikkim

62. Ms. S does not remember at all the date, month and year of the incident. P.W.5 the father of Ms. S stated that on 31.12.2014 his wife called him to the house of the convict and on reaching there she informed him that the convict had sexually assaulted Ms. S. The fact that P.W.5 received a telephone call from his wife on 31.12.2014 and heard from her after reaching the house of the convict is admissible in evidence under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The FIR was lodged by P.W.4 on 31.12.2014 itself who states that on 21.12.2014 he received information about the incident from one Lady (not examined), grandmother of Ms. S about rape having been committed by the convict on both Ms. S and Ms. R. P.W.4 further goes to state that on 31.12.2014 P.W.1 also told her that P.W.8 told her that the convict had committed rape on Ms. R and Ms. S and thereafter on the request of the Panchayat he affixed his signature on the FIR.