Gauhati High Court
Smt. Geeta Acharjee vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 6 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010009592014
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./154/2014
SMT. GEETA ACHARJEE
W/O SRI SUNNY ROY, R/O RLY. COLONY, P.O. and P.S. MAIBANG, DIST.
DIMA HASAO, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR,
2:NISHIT DAS
S/O LATE NIDHU DAS
R/O RLY. COLONY
P.O. and P.S. MAIBANG
DIST. DIMA HASAO
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR .B MALAKAR, MR.S K AGARWAL,MR.N DHAR,AMICUS
CURIAE,MR. T U LASKAR,MS.P BASFORE,MR.B DEB,MS.M BHATTACHARJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,,,PP, ASSAM,,
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
06/11/2025
Heard Mr. B Malakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M P Goswami, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.
2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 22.01.2014
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maibang, Dima Hasao District, in G.R.
Case No. 37/2009, acquitting the accused, therein, from the charge framed under Sections
448/354 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant, Geeta Acharjee, i.e., the appellant,
herein, had lodged an FIR on 06.04.2009 before the Officer-in-Charge, Maibang Police
Station, inter-alia, alleging, therein that on 04.04.2009, the accused, Nishit Das had entered
into her house and tried to outrage her modesty.
Police on receipt of the said FIR registered the same as Maibang P.S. Case No.
29/2009 under Sections 448/354 IPC.
On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came be laid against the accused,
Nishit Das under Sections 448/354 IPC.
A charge under the said Sections was also framed by the learned Trial Court against
the accused, Nishit Das and the same on being read over and explained to him, he having
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued.
During the trial, the prosecution had examined 3 (three) witnesses including the
appellant, herein, as the informant/victim of the case.
On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences
coming on record proceeded vide judgment dated 22.01.2014 to hold that the charge framed
against the accused, Nishit Das under Sections 448/354 IPC have not been established
Page No.# 3/4
beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused came to be acquitted from the said
charge and he was set at liberty forthwith.
Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, has instituted the present proceeding.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials
available on record.
5. In the FIR lodged by the appellant, herein, she had stated that taking advantage of
the darkness, the accused had entered into her house and had tried to molest her.
6. During her cross-examination, the appellant as PW2 had deposed that she had taken
private tuition of the accused, Nishit Das, when he was a small boy and the relation between
them was that of a teacher and student. She further deposed that she had not quarreled with
the sister of the accused. However, she further deposed that she had quarreled with the
accused sister because of some electricity problems and the accused taking advantage of the
darkness entered her house and started grabbing her private parts with a view to molest her.
She also deposed that the accused had grabbed her neck in the absence of her husband. She
further deposed that at the relevant point of time, only her 6 (six) years old son was present
along with her. She also deposed that the torn night gown was deposited by her in the police
station as evidence.
7. The materials coming on record does not reveal any seizure list being prepared in
the matter, seizing items purportedly deposited by the informant. Further, the inconsistency in
this stand projected both in the FIR and in her deposition before the learned Trial Court
brings to the forefront that the story as projected by the victim, herein, is not a probable one
and complete reliance thereon cannot be placed. Further, there appears to be a dispute
between the family of the appellant and the accused and the allegation now leveled may also
be a result of the same. The said doubt having arisen in the matter and the projection made
by the PW1 having not got the confidence of the Court, the learned Trial Court had proceeded
to acquit the accused from the charge framed against him under Sections 448/354 IPC.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the
Page No.# 4/4
materials brought on record does not demonstrate that the conclusions drawn by the learned
Trial Court to be erroneous and this Court having not found any infirmity with the said
conclusions drawn, the present appeal is held to be not maintainable and accordingly, the
acquittal of the accused Nishit Das would not mandate any interference from this Court.
9. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed. However, there would be
no order as to cost.
10. Registry to send down the records of the case to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
