Witnar T. Sangma @ Rambong vs . State Of Meghalaya
2022 Latest Caselaw 14 Meg

     Serial No. 6
     Regular List
                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                               AT SHILLONG
Crl.A.No.13/2019
                                                    Date of Order: 15.02.2022
Witnar T. Sangma @ Rambong                 Vs.             State of Meghalaya
Coram:
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant (s)    : Dr. N Mozika, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondent (s)              : Mr. K Khan, PP with

Mr. S Sengupta, Addl.PP JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral) This is the usual appeal filed on behalf of the convict with counsel

engaged by the Legal Services Authority. However, there is little room for

the appellant to manoeuvre or wriggle out of the situation in view of the

facts as they presented themselves before the Trial Court and the veritable

admission on the part of the appellant.

2. The FIR was lodged by the 14-year-old victim's father on April

28, 2017, reporting of an incident that took place the previous afternoon.

The victim's statements given in course of the investigation and her oral

testimony in Court are clear and leave little room for doubt. Just as her

father's FIR had indicated, the victim was returning from school between 3

pm and 4 pm on April 27, 2017, when she was accosted by the present

appellant and another person who forcibly took her to the nearby jungle and

raped her one after another. The two left the victim bleeding and threatened

the victim not to narrate the incident to any person.

3. The victim identified the appellant in Court. The other person

involved was discovered to be a juvenile and the matter pertaining to such

other person was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.

4. The victim was medically examined shortly after the complaint

was lodged, and, in course of the examination, it was found that she had

redness in the labia minora and her hymen was torn. Her "inner frock" was

seized by the investigating officer and the medical examiner, who examined

the victim, testified later in Court that it was his opinion that the victim had

been violated and sexually assaulted.

5. There was no eye-witness and several of the witnesses called by

the prosecution corroborated the narration of the incident by the victim. All

the material against the appellant, based on the deposition of the witnesses,

were summarised and put to the appellant for his response in course of the

exercise conducted by the trial court under Section 313 of the Code of the

Criminal Procedure, 1973. Though, in response to one of the initial

questions, the appellant said that he had not committed any rape, it is clear

from the appellant's answers that followed, particularly the appellant's

response to question Nos. 5, 9 and 15, that the appellant admitted to having

committed the offence along with the juvenile. The appellant's statements at

the Section 313 stage, amount to this: that neither the appellant nor the other

person involved with him had any motive of committing rape on the victim

or bore any grudge against the victim or her family but upon seeing the

victim trudging back alone after school, they were overcome with carnal

desire and committed the offence.

6. The appellant admitted to the fact that the victim was bleeding at

the time that the appellant raped her and the juvenile offender committed

rape thereafter. The appellant also admitted that the appellant and the

juvenile offender had threatened the victim and had asked her not to disclose

the incident to any person.

7. In a matter of the present kind when there is a clear picture of the

incident which is brought out by the victim in the course of her statement or

her deposition, particularly when the victim may have no axe to grind

against the accused, a degree of sanctity has to be accorded to the victim's

version. In this case even though the victim was a minor, she was 14 years

old and the way she narrated the incident left little doubt as to her

understanding of what was perpetrated on her. The medical examination

corroborated the plight suffered by the victim and the examiner's evidence

was also lucid. In addition, the appellant herein admitted to having

committed the offence in the course of at least three of the answers in

response to the questions put to him by the Court at the trial.

8. Considering the entirety of the matter and the fact that the

appellant had unequivocally confessed to having committed the offence,

there was little room for the trial court to doubt the victim's version or to

pass a different sentence than has been by the judgment of conviction and

the order of punishment.

9. There is no merit in the appeal and it has been established and

proved beyond reasonable doubt in course of the trial that it was the

appellant who committed the offence. The sentence followed the conviction

and does not call for any interference.

10. Crl.A. No.13 of 2019 is dismissed.

11. The appellant will immediately be forwarded a copy of this order

at no cost.

       (W. Diengdoh)                                     (Sanjib Banerjee)
           Judge                                            Chief Justice
Meghalaya
15.02.2022
"Lam DR-PS"