Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 4861 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 21 May, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                               Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010169402021




                                                                       2025:GAU-AS:6360

                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                             Case No. : Crl.A./171/2021

          MD. RANU AHMED
          S/O LATE SAYED UDDIN AHMED, R/O VILL- BIHUBOR, UGRIJAN, P.S.-
          BIHUBOR, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM



          VERSUS

          THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

          2:MRS. KULSUMA BEGUM
          W/O MD. RANU AHMED
           R/O VILL-LIGRIPUKHURI
           NAGAGAON (NEAR NA-PARA NAGAJAN PRATHAMIC BIDYALAYA)
           P.S.-NAZIRA
           DIST-SIVASAGAR
           PIN-78568

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MRS. M D BORUAH,MRS R BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2

:: PRESENT ::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Appellant : Mr. P. Kataki, Advocate.

                   For the Respondent No.1 :              Mr. K.K. Parasar,
                                                          Addl. P.P., Assam.
                                                                               Page No.# 2/7

                    For the Respondent No.2 :            Mr. S. Nawaz,
                                                         Amicus Curiae.

                    Date of Hearing             :        01.04.2025.
                    Date of Judgment            :        21.05.2025.


                           JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the Respondent No.2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar in Special (P) Case No.34 of 2017. The appellant was convicted under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On 05.07.2017, the Respondent No.2, being the wife of the present appellant, had lodged an FIR before police alleging that the appellant was sexually harassing their 16 years old daughter for a long time. The appellant was allegedly throwing obscene languages at the girl causing mental harassment to her.

4. On 25.04.2017, the young girl had disclosed those things to her mother/informant.

5. Police registered the case as Bihubor P.S. Case No.37 of 2017 under Sections 354/294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of investigation, police filed they charge sheet under Sections 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act against the present appellant.

6. During the trial, the prosecution side examined as many as 10 witnesses. The appellant examined himself and another witness in defence.

7. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 6, 18 and 10 of the POCSO Act. He was also convicted under Section Page No.# 3/7

323 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. I have carefully gone through the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence.

9. The first prosecution witness to be examined was the informant/the Respondent No.2. She is the wife of the appellant. She has stated that at the time of the occurrence, all three were living together. On 25.04.2017, the appellant had assaulted her. The reason for quarrel was that her daughter had told her that while she was preparing for her Class-X examination, the appellant being the father, had come into her room and showed his penis. Next morning, the witness left her matrimonial house with her three daughters. They went to the house of her parents.

10. In her cross-examination, the informant witness has stated that after the birth of her second child, she had left her matrimonial home because of quarrels with her husband, the appellant. She denied the suggestion that after her leaving matrimonial house, she stayed in the house of Fajar Ali for about two months. She says that in the year 2006, her husband once pronounced talak to her. According to this witness, after the said talak, she was taken back by her husband. She has admitted that she used to talk to Fajar Ali and her husband did not like that.

11. The second prosecution witness is the victim girl. She says that the appellant tried to touch her body on the pretext of determining how she was growing. He even wanted to kiss her on many occasions. Whenever she told him that she would be informing her mother about his conduct, he assaulted her. The young girl says that her father took her to the school and as she knew the conduct of her father, she used to hold the school bag on her chest. In that condition, her father used to touch the school bag. The young girl has stated that at night her father asked to see his sexual accomplice with his wife.

12. The victim has stated in her evidence that whenever her mother was absent from house, he forcibly laid her on the bed and rode over her and at that time he used Page No.# 4/7

to ejaculate from his private parts.

13. The victim girl has further stated that her father used to show his penis to her.

14. There is nothing material in her cross-examination.

15. The third prosecution witness is Lucy Begum Koke. She is a distant relative of the informant. She has stated in her evidence that the informant and her daughter told her that the appellant was trying to have illicit relationship with the said daughter.

16. There is nothing material in her cross-examination.

17. The fourth prosecution witness is Asma Begum. She and the informant are cousins. She has stated that before filing of the FIR by the informant, she and her three daughters were driven out from the house of her own mother. At that time, this witness gave shelter to them where they stayed for more than one month. According to Asma Begum, the informant and her daughters left her house to stay in a rented house and after that she has lodged the FIR before police. When the informant went to the police station, Asma Begum was also accompanied her. Asma Begum has stated that in the police station, the informant did not say anything to police rather her daughter informed police about the facts narrated in the FIR. The witness Asma Begum has stated that she did not ask the girl anything about her allegations.

18. In her cross-examination, Asma Begum has stated that she did not know as to why the informant and her daughter driven out of her mother's house.

19. The fifth prosecution witness is Tanuja Begum. She has stated in her evidence that one day the informant and her daughter had come to her house and the said daughter of the informant told her that the appellant used to stand nude in front of her.

20. In her cross-examination she has stated that the informant works as a daily labourer and she resides with her three daughters in a rented house.

21. The sixth prosecution witness is Pankaj Nayak. He is a neighbour of the Page No.# 5/7

appellant and knew the informant and her daughters. He has stated in his evidence that he came to know about this case after the arrest of the appellant.

22. The seventh prosecution witness is Moni Mitra. He is also a neighbour of the appellant. He knows the informant and her daughters. He also came to know about this case after the arrest of the appellant.

23. The eighth prosecution is Nitu Thakuria. He knew the appellant and the informant and her daughters. But she did not know anything about this case.

24. The ninth prosecution witness is the Medical Officer, who examined the victim girl. He spoke about his report.

25. The tenth prosecution witness is the Police Investigating Officer, who spoke about his investigation.

26. The appellant examined himself as the first defence witness. He has claimed that the informant being his wife, was maintaining illicit relationship with Md. Fajar Ali. He came to know about the fact since his marriage. He has stated that he suspected that his victim daughter was tutored by the informant to speak against him. The appellant has stated that Fajar Ali has been maintaining the informant and her children. According to the appellant, he pronounced talak to his wife more than once only because of Fajar Ali. The appellant has claimed that his victim daughter was also maintaining relationship with a person called Prosenjit Paul. The witness has stated that when he came to know about the fact, he scolded his daughter. The appellant has further stated that his daughter tried to jump into the river when his wife took her to the house of Fajar Ali.

27. In his cross-examination he has stated that he never informed his mother-in-law about the relationship between his wife and Fajar Ali.

28. The second defence witness examined by the appellant was Md. Kaju Ahmed. He is his younger brother. He has stated in his evidence that the appellant and his wife Page No.# 6/7

were involved in frequent quarrels. Every time, when there is a quarrel, the informant used to call Fajar Ali to mediate. The witness Kaju Ahmed has stated that his brother i.e. the appellant used to stay alone while his wife and children used to stay separately in a rented house. This witness has quoted the informant as saying to him that on some occasions, Fajar Ali financially helped her.

29. His cross-examination has nothing material for discussion.

30. So, the evidence available in the record shows that except the victim girl, there are no other witnesses to support the accusation that the appellant used to harass her sexually. Her mother was maintaining a strained relationship with her father. She and her sisters used to stay separately with her mother. The informant mother had lodged the FIR on the basis of whatever she had learnt from her daughter.

31. Now, a question arises as to whether under the given circumstances, whether the evidence of the victim girl deserves to be accepted as sacrosanct?

32. In Rajoo & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 858 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. The court however, further observed:

"It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. There is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration."

33. I have already mentioned hereinbefore that except the evidence of the so-called victim girl, there is nothing to corroborate her evidence. There is no doubt that the parents of the victim girl are maintaining strained relationship. They do not live together. Even the FIR was lodged after more than two months. This Court is of the Page No.# 7/7

opinion that in order accept the evidence of the victim girl, there should have been some corroborations. At this stage, I see a thick cloud of doubt hovering into the prosecution story.

34. For the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the offences against the appellant have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I have decided to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

35. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar in Special (P) Case No.34 of 2017, is set aside.

36. The appellant Md. Ranu Ahmed is acquitted from this case on benefit of doubt. If the appellant Ranu Ahmed is in judicial custody, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant