Sikkim High Court
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs State Of Sikkim on 6 December, 2023
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi M. Rai, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction)
DATED : 6th December, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.A. No.03 of 2022
Appellant : Bhim Bahadur Basnett
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the
Appellant.
Mr. Yadev Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor with Mr. Sujan
Sunwar and Mr. Shakil Raj Karki, Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the State-Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The Prosecutrix/victim, P.W.2, in the instant matter, is
a differently abled person being hearing and speech impaired. The
Complaint, Exhibit 2, came to be lodged by P.W.3, the nephew of
the victim, in whose house the offence allegedly took place on 21-
09-2020, of which the victim informed him and his wife, P.W.1.
The Court of the Learned Judge (Fast Track), South & West, at
Gyalshing, on careful analysis of the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the Prosecution and on appreciation of all
facts and circumstances of the case was convinced that the
Appellant had raped and sexually assaulted the disabled victim on
the night of 21-09-2020, in the house of P.W.3. The Appellant was
convicted for having raped a woman with physical disability,
punishable under Section 376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter, ―IPC‖), in S.T. (Fast Track) Case No.01 of 2021 (State Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 2
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
of Sikkim vs. Bhim Bahadur Basnett). In consequence thereof, he
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of
fifteen years for commission of the offence and to pay a fine of ₹
50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, in default of payment of fine
to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year, setting off the
period of detention already undergone by him, in terms of Section
428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,
―Cr.P.C.‖).
2. The Prosecution case is that on 21-09-2020 the victim
had gone to Yangang Bazaar (South Sikkim), from where she set
out for the house of her nephew P.W.3 and spent the night. During
the evening, the Appellant, a co-villager, also came to the same
house. On account of the persistent heavy rain, he too spent the
night in the house of P.W.3. That, both the above persons were in
two separate rooms in the main house of P.W.3, as P.W.3 and his
family spent the night in a temporary room, near the cowshed. On
the intervening night of 21-09-2020 and 22-09-2020, the Appellant
entered the room of the victim and is alleged to have sexually
assaulted her. The next morning when P.W.3 and his family went
over to their main house at around 6 a.m., both the victim and the
Appellant had already left the house. In the afternoon, however,
the victim returned to the house of P.W.3 and informed his wife
P.W.1 that the Appellant had raped her four times during the night.
P.W.1 then informed her husband P.W.3 of what P.W.2 had
expressed to her through gesticulations. P.W.3 for his part
informed the neighbours and the Panchayat after which P.W.10
scribed the FIR, Exhibit 2, on which P.W.3 affixed his signature.
On completion of investigation, P.W.11 who was the Investigating Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 3
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
Officer of the case found that a prima facie offence under Section
376 of the IPC was made out against the Appellant and Charge-
Sheet was submitted accordingly. Charge was framed under
Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC against the Appellant by the Learned
Trial Court. On the plea of ―not guilty‖ by the Appellant, the
Prosecution embarked on an examination of eleven Prosecution
witnesses. The Learned Trial Court concluded that the Prosecution
had proved its case and pronounced the impugned Judgment and
Order on Sentence, both dated 31-12-2021.
3. Aggrieved thereof, Learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant contended before this Court that the allegation made by
the victim against the Appellant is not borne out by medical or
forensic evidence. That, the Appellant was aged approximately 32
years at the time of offence, whereas the victim was 52 years and
claims to have been raped four times during the night as narrated
to P.W.1. Exhibit 4 is the medical report of the victim, according to
which, the victim was examined on 23-09-2020 at 03.40 p.m., the
offence having allegedly taken place on the intervening night of 21-
09-2020 and 22-09-2020. That, no physical indication of such
violation were found on her person including her private parts. The
Medical Officer, P.W.9, after examining the victim categorically
opined that there was no vaginal tear, no swelling, no ecchymosis
neither was there any tenderness in the area. The vaginal swabs
both internal and external of the victim, collected by P.W.9, were
examined at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL).
That, neither the undergarments of the victim and the accused
forwarded to the RFSL contained any body fluids nor did the penile
swabs of the Appellant and the vaginal swabs of the victim point to Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 4
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
any offence. The medical report of the Appellant failed to lend
credence to the Prosecution case as no injuries were detected on
any part of his body, including his private parts. The Prosecution
exhibited the RFSL report as Exhibit 9 but failed to enumerate
reasons as to why the Junior Scientific Officer of the RFSL who
conducted the forensic tests was not examined as a witness. This
clearly indicates that the Prosecution evidence did not support the
allegation made by the victim against the Appellant. That, the
victim was examined as P.W.2 during the trial and the records
reveal that the Oath was administered on the victim with the help
of the Special Educator and P.W.1 the victim's relative who was
allegedly familiar with the communications made by the victim.
That, the Learned Trial Court however failed to appreciate that the
victim did not live with P.W.1 but with P.W.6 her sister and
therefore there was no explanation as to how P.W.1 or the Special
Educator were familiar with the gesticulations and communication
made by the victim. That, no assistance was obtained from P.W.6
during trial, who would have been better circumstanced to explain
the communications made by P.W.2. That, P.W.6 has also not
revealed in her evidence that the victim had complained to her at
any point in time that the Appellant had raped her. In fact,
according to P.W.6, after P.W.2 returned home the area Panchayat
came to her house and informed her, i.e., P.W.6, that her sister
had been raped by the Appellant, in the house of P.W.3 and took
P.W.2 along with her. The cross-examination of P.W.6 reveals that
the Prosecution failed to record the correct name of the victim. It
was next emphasised that the Learned Trial Court also failed to
take into consideration Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 5
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
1872 (hereinafter, ―Evidence Act‖) while recording the evidence of
P.W.2 as the proceedings were not videographed. That, the
Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the Appellant is indicative of the
fact that he was framed in the offence as his elder brother was
complicit in getting P.W.10 arrested in another case. That, in light
of the arguments advanced it is apparent that the evidence on
record fails to establish the Prosecution case. Relying on the
decision of this Court in Dal Bahadur Darjee vs. State of Sikkim1 and
Dawagyal Lepcha vs. State of Sikkim2 it was urged that the legal
principles emphasised therein under Section 118 and Section 119
of the Indian Evidence Act have not been followed by the Learned
Trial Court. That, as the Prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt, the Appellant be acquitted of the offence
charged with.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while fairly
conceding that the medical report Exhibit 4 and the RFSL report,
Exhibit 9 do not support the Prosecution case, argued that it is not
always necessary for injuries to be found on the victim of sexual
assault to establish the commission of the offence. That, the victim
assisted by the Special Educator and P.W.1 her relative have
unerringly made out a case of rape against the Appellant. P.W.2
has by her gestures before the Court and to the Prosecution
witnesses indicated how the sexual offence was committed on her
by the Appellant. That, P.W.1 to whom the incident of rape was
first narrated by P.W.2 has supported the victim's narrative as also
P.Ws 4, 5, 7 and 8. That, the Judgment of the Learned Trial Court
in the said circumstances warrants no interference.
1 2019 SCC OnLine Sikk 122 2 2023 SCC OnLine Sikk 93 Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 6
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
5. Having considered the submissions of Learned Counsel
for the parties, in the first instance, it would be apposite to
examine the evidence on record. P.W.1 stated that the victim and
the Appellant spent the night in different rooms in the house of the
witness, while she and her family slept in a temporary room made
next to their cowshed apprehending landslides near their main
house as it was monsoon season. The next morning when she
returned to her home she found that both P.W.2 and the Appellant
had already left their rooms. Later, the victim returned and
through gestures enacted the offence of rape committed on her by
the Appellant. P.W.1 then woke up her husband and the victim
once again repeated to him through gestures the sexual assault
perpetrated on her by the Appellant as she had shown to P.W.3
earlier.
(i) P.W.2, the victim is said to have given evidence in the
Court with the help of the Special Educator and P.W.1. Pertinently,
the Special Educator was not examined separately by the Court to
verify her educational qualifications as no documentary evidence in
proof thereof was furnished. Before commencing the evidence of
P.W.2 the Learned Trial Court recorded as follows;
"............................................................................ (As the victim has a speech impediment, for the purposes of clarity, her statement is recorded with the assistance of Ms. Almaya Subba, Special Educator, Social Justice & Welfare Department and as well as PW-1 family member of the victim who is familiar with communication of the victim. Evidence of the victim accordingly recorded under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).
..............................................................................."
All that can be culled out from the afore-extracted sentences is that
the person named therein is a ―Special Educator‖. No Oath was
administered to her. While the Learned Trial Court noted that Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 7
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
P.W.1 the family member of the victim was familiar with the
gestures of the victim, the records reveal that in fact P.W.6 is the
victim's sister with whom she was living, but scant attention was
paid to this fact by the Prosecution or the Learned Trial Court.
Relevantly, it is noticed that the Learned Trial Court in its Order
dated 12-04-2021 recorded that "Ld. Addl. P.P. submits that since
the victim is unable to speak and hear, she prays that summons
also be issued to PW6, the relative of the victim who is familiar
with communicating with the victim.". However, on 30-06-2021
contrary to the above observation, the Learned Trial Court went on
to record in its Order that "Victim examined with the help of Ms.
Almaya Subba, Special Educator who is also present in the Court
and the examination also video (sic) under Section 119, Indian
Evidence Act, 1872." with no reference to P.W.1 to reveal her
presence, although in the evidence of P.W.2 it is recorded that the
assistance of both Special Educator and P.W.1 were taken.
Incongruously enough, P.W.1 appears to have responded to a
question put to the victim and the Court has recorded her
response, without clarifying the provision of law under which such a
step was adopted or permitted. P.W.1 was to assist but not to
respond independently on behalf of the victim. Two aspects
emerge from the above extracted portions of the proceedings in
the Learned Trial Court, the first being that the assistance of P.W.6
was not availed of by the victim or by the Court when P.W.2
deposed before the Court, which was alive to the fact that P.W.6
was familiar with communicating with the victim having been
apprised of it by the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The
second aspect is that although the Learned Trial Court has Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 8
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
recorded that the examination was also videographed no such
videography has been placed before this Court during the hearing
of the Appeal. In fact, the impugned Judgment of the Learned Trial
Court also makes no reference to such videography.
(ii) The Learned Trial Court has recorded that the evidence
of the victim is recorded under Section 119 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, as already seen (supra). True, Section 119 of the
Evidence Act is invoked for a witness who is unable to
communicate verbally. The provision lays down that a witness who
is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in
which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs. The
Proviso which is an indispensible appendage of the Section lays
down without ambiguity that if the witness is unable to
communicate verbally, the Court shall take the assistance of an
interpreter or a Special Educator in recording the statement and
such statement shall be ―videographed‖. The Court has
purportedly taken the assistance of P.W.1 and the Special
Educator, but the statement of the victim has not been
videographed. This Court in Dawagyal Lepcha (supra) has held that
not only is Section 119 of the Evidence Act important while
recording the evidence of a disabled person, the provision of
Section 118 of the Evidence Act is also to be taken into
consideration being of equal importance. It is incumbent upon the
Learned Trial Court to examine the competence of a witness who
suffers from physical disability to testify, in terms of Section 118 of
the Evidence Act to gauge whether the witness in this case, the
victim, P.W.2 was prevented from understanding the questions put
to her or from giving rational answers to those questions on Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 9
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
account of her disabilities. Such examination of the victim and the
responses extracted from her could either inspire the confidence of
the Court with regard to her ability to depose by assessing her
abilities of comprehension or to disregard the evidence on grounds
of being unreliable, incomprehensible and unconvincing. In
Dawagyal Lepcha (supra) this Court had referred to State of 3 Rajasthan vs. Darshan Singh alias Darshan Lal where the Supreme
Court while considering the provision of Section 119 of the
Evidence Act inter alia held as follows;
"18. ........................................ When a deaf and dumb person is examined in the court, the court has to exercise due caution and take care to ascertain before he is examined that he possesses the requisite amount of intelligence and that he understands the nature of an oath. On being satisfied on this, the witness may be administered oath by appropriate means and that also be with the assistance of an interpreter. However, in case a person can read and write, it is most desirable to adopt that method being more satisfactory than any sign language. The law required that there must be a record of signs and not the interpretation of signs.
..............................................................
21. To sum up, a deaf and dumb person is a competent witness. If in the opinion of the Court, oath can be administered to him/her, it should be so done. Such a witness, if able to read and write, it is desirable to record his statement giving him questions in writing and seeking answers in writing. In case the witness is not able to read and write, his statement can be recorded in sign language with the aid of interpreter, if found necessary. In case the interpreter is provided, he should be a person of the same surrounding but should not have any interest in the case and he should be administered oath."
[emphasis supplied]
(iii) The Learned Trial Court has failed to ascertain whether
the victim possessed the requisite amount of intelligence or that
she understood the nature of the Oath. On this facet, the victim
was admittedly a ‗laati', i.e., a person who is said to be suffering
from speech impairment mostly but may also be suffering from
intellectual impairment. Appositely in this context, we may refer to 3 AIR 2012 SC 1973 Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 10
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,
which provides as follows;
―2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
.......................................................................................
(s) "person with disability‖ means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others;"
[emphasis supplied]
(iv) The National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism,
Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act,
1999, defines persons with disability as follows;
"2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
...........................................................................
(j) "persons with disability‖ means a person suffering from any of the conditions relating to autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation or a combination of any two or more of such conditions and includes a person suffering from severe multiple disability;‖
(v) In this context, the Learned Trial Court while recording
the evidence of the Prosecutrix has noticed that the victim has a
speech impediment and was communicating through gestures. No
disability card issued by the concerned authority was relied on by
the Prosecution. When the evidence of P.W.7 was recorded she
referred to the victim as a ‗laati' (speech impaired). P.W.8 also
described the victim as having speech impairment, in other words
‗laati'. The I.O. in his cross-examination stated that "It is not a
fact that my investigation did not reveal that the victim is hearing
and speech impaired since birth ...............". Her disabilities
undoubtedly hinder her effective participation, but in the absence
of examination of the witness in terms of Section 118 of the Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 11
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
Evidence Act it is not clear whether the victim suffered from
physical disability only or also from mental disability.
(vi) Reverting to the question of Oath administered to the
victim before recording her evidence, the Court has recorded as
follows;
"OATH ADMINISTERED (with the help of the Special Educator and PW-1, (victim's relative) who is familiar with communicating with the victim, kasam/oath administered on the victim to tell the truth).‖
The Court below did not record that the victim understood what
was communicated to her and that she was capable of
understanding the meaning of oath and that she was to deliver the
truth. This is where the importance of Section 118 of the Evidence
Act kicks into place and ought to have been given due weightage
by the Learned Trial Court. The Learned Trial Court has also not
recorded its findings as to how the Special Educator was familiar
with the words and gestures of the victim as the Special Educator
herself has admitted on a question put to her during the cross-
examination of the ―victim‖, that she had not met the victim before
and the day of the victim's evidence was the first time that she had
met her. So far as the question of interpreter, Special Educator or
person familiar with the manner of communication with the victim
is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that the victim is from a
rural background and her evidence reveals that she is uneducated.
In such circumstances, a Special Educator in the first instance
would be incompetent to translate her gesticulations as the victim
was never formally educated in the sign language. It is only in
cases where the victims have been educated in the sign language Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 12
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
that the assistance of Special Educator would be of any assistance
to the Court in interpreting the gesticulations.
(vii) The above shortcomings having been noticed and
pointed out, it is relevant to also reiterate that the cardinal
principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the burden rests on the
Prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It cannot benefit from the weakness of the
defence case. This is being stated for the purpose that so far as
the offence of rape is concerned, we are unable to convince
ourselves on the basis of evidence furnished that the act of sexual
assault by way of penetration occurred, this is for the reason that
both the persons involved in the incident have no physical
indication whatsoever of any sexual intercourse as borne out by the
evidence in Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 9. Exhibit 4 is the
medical report of the victim, identified by P.W.9, the Medical
Officer who examined the victim and inter alia indicates as follows;
Head to toe examination
- no sign of defence seen
- no cuts, bruise, scratches or abrasion seen
- no blood stains seen L/E
- no vaginal tear
- no swelling
- no ecchymosis
- no tenderness UTP -ve
Exhibit 5 is the medical examination report of the Appellant
also identified by P.W.9 which inter alia is as follows;
Head to toe examination
- superficial graze abrasion over left cheek,
- 2 cm x 1 cm with swelling
- no other significant injuries observed.
L/E
- Smegma Absent size - 8.5 cm no trauma or injury around the penis.
Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 13
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
(viii) The Learned Trial Court was impressed by the fact that
the medical report of the Appellant indicated a ―graze abrasion‖ on
the cheek of the Appellant. The Learned Trial Court failed to
appreciate that the victim made no claims of having assaulted him
on the cheek neither is it the Prosecution case that the injury was
sustained by him during the alleged sexual assault.
(ix) This Court is indeed alive to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Krishan vs. State of Haryana4 where it was held
that it is not expected that every rape victim should have injuries
on her body to prove her case. In this context, in State of Rajasthan
vs. N. K. The Accused5 also the Supreme Court held inter alia that;
"18. ................................ The absence of visible marks of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical examination would not necessarily mean that she had not suffered any injuries or that she had offered no resistance at the time of commission of the crime. Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegation or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. It will all depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. ......................."
(x) That having been said, in Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P.6
the Supreme Court had observed that in the event of any lapses on
the part of the Investigating Agency or the Prosecution, the victim
of such serious offences ought not to suffer since bad investigation
is no ground for acquittal. The Learned Trial Court relied on the
ratio however by extracting only the afore-mentioned sentences
from the Judgment, thereby shearing it of its intrinsic
interpretation. In fact, the Supreme Court held therein that;
"8. ...................................................... ................................. The find (sic) of semen stains on the petticoat and in the vagina lend assurance to the 4 (2014) 13 SCC 574 5 (2000) 5 SCC 30 6 (1995) 5 SCC 518 Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 14
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
story narrated by the prosecutrix. The submission that there was delay in lodging the complaint has to be stated to be rejected for the simple reason that immediately after the incident she had to go in search of her husband who was a rickshaw-puller, narrate to him the incident, go down to the police station and then lodge the complaint. .................................."
The Learned Trial Court thus failed to appreciate that in the case of
Karnel Singh (supra) the Prosecution despite finding semen stains
on the petticoat as well as in the vagina of the victim had failed to
take this into consideration during the investigation. In Paragraph
4 of the said Judgment Karnel Singh (ibid), it was observed as
follows;
"4. We have very carefully scrutinized the evidence having regard to the fact that (PW 6) the investigating officer had not taken the care expected of him. He did not record the statements of the two witnesses nor did he refer to the attachment of the ‗chaddi' in his oral evidence. That was a very vital piece of evidence to which little or no attention was paid. If the seizure of that article was properly proved, the article with semen stains would have lent strong corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no doubt that the investigation was casual and defective. But despite these deficiencies both the courts below have recorded a conviction. The question is : are they right?"
The Supreme Court went on to observe that "Any investigating
officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would
have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have
drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the 'chaddi'. That is
the reason why we have said that the investigation was slipshod
and defective.".
(xi) In the case at hand, we find that indeed the I.O. has
not only neglected during investigation to examine the details of
whether the victim was only physically disabled or also mentally
disabled, as having lesser ability of comprehension, but has also
presented the Special Educator before the Court to assist P.W.2
when she had had no previous interaction with the victim and was Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 15
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
literally a stranger to the gestures and language employed by the
victim. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain7
the Supreme Court has held that no corroboration is required for
the evidence of a Prosecutrix with the caveat that it should inspire
the confidence of the Court to enable it to reach the finding that
the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt as
is the standard set for proof of a criminal case.
(xii) The medical evidence Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 or the
forensic analysis Exhibit 9, indicate that there was no body fluids
on the undergarments of the victim and the Appellant nor were
there any incriminating fluids in the external and internal vaginal
swab of the victim and the penile swab of the Appellant. No
medication appears to have been prescribed to the victim in Exhibit
4 contrary to the claim of the victim in her response to question
number 6 of her evidence. The Appellant is alleged to have raped
her four times during the intervening night of 21-09-2020 and 22-
09-2020, she was medically examined immediately on 23-09-2020,
in our considered opinion, there ought to have been some physical
indication of the assault. We are constrained to observe that the
Court is to do justice both to the Prosecutrix and to the Appellant.
Merely because the Appellant has been accused of an offence and
Charge-Sheet filed against him it does not tantamount to proof of
the case against him, unless it meets the high bar of proof set for a
criminal case.
6. In such circumstances and for reasons already
enumerated (supra), we conclude that the Prosecution has failed to
establish its case under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC.
7 (1990) 1 SCC 550 Crl.A. No.03 of 2022 16
Bhim Bahadur Basnett vs. State of Sikkim
7. However, an offence under Section 354A(1)(i) of the
IPC, i.e., physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and
explicit sexual overtures has been proved by the evidence of
P.W.2.
8. The Appellant is accordingly acquitted of the offence
under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC.
9. The Appellant however stands convicted of the offence
under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) ( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge Judge
06-12-2023 06-12-2023
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds
