Sikkim High Court
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs State Of Sikkim on 19 June, 2025
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi M. Rai, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction)
DATED : 19th June, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crl.A. No.04 of 2023
Appellant : Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey
versus
Respondent : State of Sikkim
Application under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Ms. Gita Bista, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Appellant.
Mr. S. K. Chettri, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-
Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The questions that fall for determination before this
Court are, (i) whether the Appellant perpetrated sexual assault on
the victim; (ii) whether such act could be described as a sexual
assault; or (iii) whether it was consensual.
2. On 07-02-2022, Exbt 1, the FIR, was lodged by PW-1,
the sister-in-law of the victim PW-2, informing the jurisdictional
Police Station that, the Appellant had raped the victim on the same
day, at about 01.22 p.m. She witnessed the incident while returning
after completing an errand. On the basis of the FIR, the concerned
PS registered the case against the Appellant, under Section 376 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and endorsed it for
investigation to PW-7. Charge-Sheet was filed against the Appellant
under Section 376 of the IPC.
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
(i) The Learned Trial Court proceeded to frame Charge
against the Appellant under Section 376(2)(j) for raping a specially-
abled person who was unable to give her consent. The second
Charge was under Section 376(2)(l) for raping a person who suffers
from mental or physical disability and thirdly, for committing the
offence repeatedly on the same woman under Section 376(2)(n) of
the IPC. The Appellant having understood the Charge, entered a
plea of "not guilty" and claimed trial. The Prosecution examined
seven witnesses, which included the Investigating Officer (I.O.) of
the case. The closure of the evidence led to the examination of the
Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.P.C."), affording him an opportunity to explain
the incriminating evidence appearing against him. While claiming
innocence, he asserted ignorance of the incident and stated that he
did not rape the victim.
(ii) The final arguments of the opposing parties were heard.
The Trial Court on consideration and appreciation of the evidence on
record came to a finding that, the Prosecution had proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt under Section 376(1) of the IPC. While
doing so, the Court reasoned that although no Charge had been
framed under Section 376(1) of the IPC, against the Appellant, but
he was aware of the basic ingredients of the Charge. As regards the
Charges under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(l) and 376(2)(n) of the
IPC, the Trial Court opined that no credible evidence was adduced by
the Prosecution, leading to the Appellant's acquittal of the said
Charges.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that in fact
no such act of sexual intercourse took place between the Appellant
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
and the victim. However, if indeed such an act did take place it was
entirely consensual. Learned Counsel raised doubts about the date
of offence and argued that the Prosecution has failed to establish the
correct date of the offence. PW-1 in her FIR mentioned that, the
offence took place on 07-02-2022 but the victim PW-2, during her
medical examination told the Doctor that the offence took place on
06-02-2022, at 3 p.m. The date and time of the offence are
contradictory in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Although an
abrasion was detected in the labia minora of the victim but the age
of the injury was not discerned. Considering the age difference
between the Appellant who was fifty-five years and the victim aged
thirty-five years, she could well have defended herself, being
younger and presumably physically stronger. The FIR was not
scribed by PW-1, but the scribe was not examined for verification.
The victim did not raise any hue and cry when the Appellant
allegedly disrobed her, and since she was in a state of total nudity it
implied her consent. Her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement reveals that
she was not aggrieved by the incident. Hence, the impugned
Judgment of the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the
Appellant acquitted of the offence of rape.
4. Contesting the arguments advanced, Learned Additional
Public Prosecutor submitted that, conviction can be based on the
sole, evidence of the victim as done in the instant case by the Trial
Court for which reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench
of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi1.
That, besides the victim, PW-1 is an eye-witness to the incident,
while others have corroborated the Prosecution case. In such
(2003) 11 SCC 367
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
circumstances, the impugned Judgment of the Trial Court ought not
to be interfered as the finding therein is correct.
5. The rival contentions of Learned Counsel were heard in
extenso and all documents, evidence and the impugned Judgment
and Order on Sentence perused. The reason put forth by the Trial
Court for convicting the Appellant under Section 376(1) IPC despite
no charge having been framed is not erroneous. The purpose of
framing a charge is to give an accused Notice of the matter that he
is charged with.
6. In Willie (William) Slaney vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2, the
Court ruled that a mere defect in Charge is no ground for setting
aside conviction. Procedural laws are designed to subserve the ends
of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. The
object of the charge is to give an accused notice of the matter he is
charged with. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and
no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges, the accused
cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were
defective. In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the Court
must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to
technicalities and their main concern should be to see whether the
accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried
for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him
were explained to him fairly and clearly.
7. In State of Sikkim vs. Kul Chandra Baral3 , this High Court
observed that;
"6. .................The object of a charge is to warn
the accused of the case he is to answer. In other
words, charge is an accusation made against a person
AIR 1956 SC 116
2005 CRI.L.J. 1027
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
in respect of an offence alleged to have been
committed by him. In order to hold that error, omission
or irregularity in the charge is not curable, the accused
has to show that by such error, omission or irregularity
a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned.
Whether there is a failure of justice or not is a question
of fact. In the case at hand the respondent had
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and in fact
he cross-examined the PWs. ................."
The charges framed against the Appellant indicate that he has been
made aware of the primary offence with which he is charged i.e., for
the offence of rape.
8. A brief summary of the Prosecution case is that, on 07-
02-2022, PW-1 the sister-in-law of the victim, while returning from a
nearby shop, witnessed the Appellant raping the victim in the nearby
field. She intervened and beat them both with a stick and reported
the matter to the local Panchayat Member PW-3. Investigation
revealed that, the Appellant had forcibly taken PW-2 to the field,
disrobed himself and her and forcibly had sexual intercourse with
her. A psychiatric evaluation of the victim was conducted by a
Senior Psychiatrist PW-5, who opined that the victim was well-
oriented to time, place and person and no active psychiatric
intervention was required. The medical examination of the victim
and the Appellant both by PW-6, led to the finding of the injury in
the victim's genital.
(i) PW-1 claims to have witnessed the incident and stated
that, on the 7th of a particular month, at around 01.22 p.m., she
heard the victim screaming in the field. Recognising her screams,
she went to ascertain what had caused her to scream and she saw
both the Appellant and the victim naked with the Appellant forcing
himself on the victim, who was pushing him and screaming. She
pulled them apart and beat both of them with a stick. Then, she
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
called PW-3 and PW-4 and thereafter went to the PS to lodge Exbt
P1. Her evidence stood the test of cross-examination.
(ii) The Trial Court while conducting the evidence of PW-2
permitted PW-1 to remain in the Court room in the event her
assistance would be required for interpretation of the victim's
statement as the Court found that the victim had Down syndrome,
and also had difficulty walking. The Court put certain questions to
PW-2 to test her capability to depose and found she was capable of
testifying. Pausing here, it may pertinently be pointed out that
these were the observations made by the Court on physical
assessment of the victim. The Prosecution did not furnish any
evidence to prove that PW-2 had Down syndrome. It appears with
clarity from the evidence of PW-2 that she could identify the
Appellant in the Court room by his name. Her evidence was to the
effect that the Appellant came to her house and told her to
accompany him to the fields. Although she was not willing to go, he
forced her. In the said fields, he took off her clothes forcibly as well
his own. He then committed sexual intercourse and also fondled her
breasts. She described how the acts of sexual intercourse took
place. It was her evidence that she tried to resist and pushed him,
but she was unable to restrain him. She screamed and shouted to
no avail and no one heard her for some time. However, later PW-1
arrived at the spot and beat both of them. After the Police came,
they went to the PS and she was also sent to the Doctor. She also
went to the Court and affixed her thumb impression after giving her
statement before a Judge. The contents of her Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement (Exbt-4) was read over to her, she admitted that the
statements were made by her and described in detail the offence
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
committed forcibly by the Appellant. Under cross-examination, she
denied that she went willingly with the Appellant when he asked her
to accompany him or that she had consensual sex with him.
(iii) PW-3 was the Panchayat Member who was informed by
PW-1 that the Appellant forcibly had sex with the victim. He was not
an eye-witness to the incident.
(iv) PW-5 the Senior Psychiatrist who examined the victim
deposed; "On examination she was well oriented to time, place and
person. I evaluated her for her psychiatric problem and on her
examination, I found no active psychiatric intervention was required
after her examination." His evidence reveals that she had an
understanding of the events that unfolded.
(v) PW-6, the Doctor who conducted the medical
examination of the victim, after the alleged sexual assault on 07-02-
2022, at round 1940 hours, stated that, as per the victim, the
incident occurred on 06-02-2022, around 3 p.m., while she was
sitting outside her house in her village. The Doctor inter alia
deposed as follows;
"................................................
On local examination: there was an abrasion,
reddish in colour with bluish contusion measuring 2cm
x 1cm on her back. Abrasion around 2cm (clean,
straight) on her right forearm and contusion (black)
measuring around 3cm x 3cm over her right upper
arm.
On the genital examination: pubic hair matted
(black) present. No active bleeding. There was an
abrasion on labia minora at 9'0 clock position.
................................................"
It is apparent that the injuries on the victim including her
genital are indicative of her resistance to the act, perpetrated on her
forcibly by the Appellant.
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
(vi) On the same day, PW-6 also examined the Appellant,
who was brought for his medical examination with a history of
committing sexual assault on the victim. As he was intoxicated, PW-
6 was unable to opine whether he was able to perform sexual
intercourse. Be that as it may, it must be borne in mind that the
physical examination of the victim, conducted by PW-6, has to be
read in tandem with her evidence and considered accordingly. The
victim as already deposed by PW-5, the Senior Psychiatrist required
no active psychiatric intervention revealing that she was in a
position to understand her own actions as well as that of others.
The evidence given by her is cogent and consistent as regards the
incident. The evidence of PW-6 has shown abrasion on the labia
minora of PW-2 and other injuries on her person. PW-1 has
categorically stated that she saw the Appellant having forcible sex
with the victim and the victim was pushing the Appellant and
screaming. Although, an objection was made to this statement
however, it is seen that her cross-examination did not demolish the
statement of forcible sexual assault being committed by the
Appellant, on the victim.
9. The Trial Court was of the view that the evidence of the
victim was consistent, explicit and clear in her narration of how the
Appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on her against
her will. After examining the evidence of the victim the minor
anomalies regarding the date of the incident, pointed out by the
Defence Counsel are being ignored as it does not change the
Prosecution narrative of penetrative sexual assault.
Ram Bhakta Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey vs. State of Sikkim
10. The questions framed (supra) are determined
accordingly. The evidence on record gives us no reason to conclude
that the act was consensual.
11. In the said circumstances, we are of the considered view
that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on Sentence,
in ST (Fast Track) Case No.01 of 2022 (State of Sikkim vs. Ram Bhakta
Rai @ Ram Kumar Rai @ Bhaktey), both dated 17-12-2022, of the
Court of the Learned Judge (Fast Track), South and West, at
Gyalshing, West Sikkim, brook no interference.
12. The Appeal is consequently dismissed.
13. Copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Trial Court
for information along with its records.
14. A copy of this Judgment be made over to the
Appellant/convict through the Jail Superintendent, Central Prison,
Rongyek and to the Jail Authority for information.
(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan ) ( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge Judge
19-06-2025 19-06-2025
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl
