Rohit Pradhan | 2nd September 2019
Sangay Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, MANU/SI/0036/2019
Case Brief-
According to Prosecution story, victim’s husband filed lodged complaint stating that, while her wife was coming back from work to home, Sangay Bhutia (accused) appeared from the back of the victim and grabbed her, he, later on, assaulted her; while victim was shouting for help and consequently, she fainted. When she regained her consciousness, he left.
The case was filed in the court of session and was charged under section 376(1), 323 and 341. Accused denied all the charges. Accused was convicted by the fast track court under section 376(1), 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The counsel of appellant contended that there were material discrepancies in the submission of the victim. She can not claim in totality that she was raped. There is no evidence to corroborate her claim and hence there can not be any basis for conviction.
Counsel for the appellant relied on the case of Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 2 SCC 170, where court held that,
“Conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the Court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity.”
High Court concluded that it is true that the sole testimony of victim is sufficient to convict an accused, but without any medical evidence, court will have to examine the witness more carefully. Moreover, victim’s statement implies that she is not sure if she was raped.
Held-
Appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 376(1) along with the sentence being set aside, though the Court made it clear that it would not mean that the prosecution case is totally false. Thus, the charges under Sections 323 and 341 of Penal Code, 1860 were proved and the finding of the trial court in that regard stands affirmed.
[wpdm_package id=’1257′]
Leave a Reply