1
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, F.T.C., NAGOAN
(ASSAM)
Sessions Case No. 416/2012
U/S 366/34/ 376(G)IPC
Present:- Smti S. P. Khound (M.A, L.L.B)
Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.,
Nagaon (Assam)
State
-VsMohidul Islam & Ors
Advocate for the state
Advocate for the accused
:
:
Mr. K.Choudhury, Addl. P.P.
Mr.Surajit Borah
Date of evidence
Date of argument
Date of Judgment
:
:
:
13-12-13, 31-05-14,
31-05-14
31-05-14
JUDGMENT
Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that, on
4-1-11, at about 7p.m, the victim 'X' went out from her house to attend
nature's call. At that time, the accused person Mohidul Isalam
(hereinafter the accused) gagged her with a piece of cloth and carried
her to his house and forcefully committed rape on her and snatched
away her gold and silver jewelery worth Rs.30,000/- and released her
on the following morning.
An Ejahar to this effect was lodged by the victim's father Md.
Rahmat Ali (hereinafter the complainant). Jainal Abedin's name have
also been mentioned in the Ejahar. A GD entry was recorded being GD
entry No. 143 dtd 13-1-11 at Nokhuti and the Ejahar was forwarded to
the Lumding P.S. A Lumding P.S. case No.10/11 U/S 342/376/379 IPC
2
was registered and investigation was set into motion.
The investigating officer (I.O in short), went to the place of
occurrence, prepared the sketch map and recorded the statements of the
witnesses. The victim 'X' was forwarded for medical examination and
for recording her statement U/S 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrP.C in short). After completing the investigation the I/O placed
charge-sheet before the competent Court against the accused persons
U/S 342/376/379/34 IPC.
On appearance of the accused persons, copies were furnished and
as section 376 is triable by the Sessions Judge, this case was committed
to the Court of the Sessions Judge Nagaon, vide order dated 8-11-12,
passed by the learned JMFC in GR case No.45/11. Subsequently, this
case was transferred to this court for disposal.
After hearing both the sides, a formal charge U/S 366/34 and
376(G)IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused
persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence
of four witnesses and the defence limited itself to the cross-examination
of three witnesses only. The statements of the accused persons were
recorded U/S 313 CrPC. I have heard the arguments forwarded by the
learned counsel for both the sides.
3
Points for Determinations
On the basis of the rivals proponents advanced at the bar, the
following points are to be decided.
(i) Whether on 4-11-12 at about 7p.m, the accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention, kidnapped the victim 'X' with
intent that she may be compelled to marry any person against her will
or in order that she may be forced to illicit intercourse ?
(ii) Whether around same time and place the accused persons
committed gang rape on the victim 'X' ?
Decision thereon and the reasons for the decision
The victim testified as PW-2 that about a year ago one night she
came out of her house to answer nature's call. At that time 2 miscreants
covered her eyes and carried her to the nearby jungle and committed
rape on her. She raised alarm. At that time her mother came out. Then
the miscreants fled. She informed her mother about the incident. After
one hour, her father returned and after learning about the incident he
lodged the Ejahar. She gave her statement before the Magistrate where
she affixed her thumb impression. In her cross-examination she testified
that she could not recognize the miscreants and the accused persons
names were mentioned on suspicion.
It is clear from PW-2's evidence that 2 miscreants committed rape
4
on her but she failed to recognize the miscreants.
The complainant Rahmat Ali testified as PW-4. He also did not
implicate the accused persons, but he testified that about a year ago one
night at about 7p.m., two miscreants forcefully took away his daughter
to the nearby the jungle, when she went out to answer nature's call. The
miscreants committed rape on his daughter. He learnt about the incident
when he returned home. He does not know who committed rape on his
daughter but he suspected the accused persons because they had a land
dispute.
A Criminal Case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
one cannot be made liable on suspicion due to existing acrimony
between them.
The victim's mother testified as PW3 that about a year ago one
night, at about 7p.m., when 'X' went out for toilet, she heard 'X'
screaming. She learnt from the victim that when she came out two
miscreants gagged her and took her to the nearby jungle and committed
rape on her.
According to the Medical officer's opinion there were no
evidence of recent sexual intercourse at the time of 'X's examination.
The Medical Officer Dr. Madhumita Bora testified as PW-1 that on 111-11 she examined the victim. She found no injury marks on her body
or her private parts. Ext.1 is the Medico Legal Report and Ext.1(1) is
5
her signature.
In view of my foregoing discussions, it is thereby held, that the
victim as well as the other witnesses failed to identify the miscreants
who committed rape on the victim. In this manner, the prosecution also
failed to prove that he accused persons kidnapped victim with intent
that she will be compelled to marry another person and seduced to illicit
intercourse. The benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons. Thereby,
the accused persons Mohidul Islam and Jainal Abedin are acquitted
from the charges U/S 366/34 and 376(g) of the IPC on benefit of doubt
and set at liberty forthwith.
Judgment is signed, sealed and delivered in the open court
on the 31st day of May 2014.
Dictated & corrected by me:
Addl. Sess. Judge, FTC, Nagaon.
Addl. Sess. Judge, FTC, Nagaon.