Page 1

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE DARRANG,MANGALDAI.

Sessions Case No.195(DM)16

(U/S : 376/342 of I.P.C.)

(Committed by Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Mangaldai in G.R. 3162/14).

State
Versus

Jahidul Hoque
S/O Fulu Seikh
Vill- Khataniapara
PS- Dhula,
Dist-Darrang(Assam)-- Accused

PRESENT: Sri P.Saikia,A.J.S.,

Sessions Judge.
Darrang,Mangaldai.

APPERANCE:

For the Prosecution : Sri P.Sarma, P.P.,Mangaldai

AND

For the accused : Jabbar Ali,Advocate.

Evidence recorded on :01/03/17, 28/03/17, 28/04/17,

01/07/17,28/07/17, 17/08/17.
,

Argument heard on : 08/09/2017

Judgment delivered on: 22/09/2017.

 Page 2

JUDGMENT.
1. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 05/11/2015 the
informant Md. Hoque Miya lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-
charge, Dhula Police Station stating inter alia that on 04/11/2014
about 11 p.m. while his minor daughter(real name is withheld
and henceforth referred to as the victim girl) was returning from
Maharam programme held nearby his home at that time the
accused person namely Md.Jahidul Hoque kidnapped her
forcefully and thereafter took her to a bamboo groove belonged
to one Rashid Miya and committed rape on her. After committing
rape on his victim daughter the accused Jahidul Hoque kept her
confined at his house. When the other family members of the
accused Jahidul namely Dilowar Hussain and Fulu Sheikh came
to know that his own daughter has been kept confined in the
room of accused Jahidul Hoque then they dropped her out from
their house after assaulting on her person.

2. Basing on the FIR the O/C, Dhula Police Station registered the
case vide Dhula PS case No.552/14 U/S 376/ 342/34 I.P.C. and
entrusted the case to take up investigation to S.I. Pran Gopal
Chakraborty. After as usual completion of the investigation the
I.O. laid charge sheet against the accused Md. Jahidul Hoque U/S
376 I.P.C. to face trial.

3. On receipt of the charge sheet the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai took cognizance of the offence
U/S 376 I.P.C. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang,Mangaldai
having ensured the presence of the accused committed the case
to this court of Sessions on 22/11/16 after due compliance of the
provision U/S 207 Cr.P.C.
 Page 3

4. Whereupon on perusal of the entire material on the case record

along with Police paper supplied U/S 173 Cr.P.C. a prima-facie
case having been made out to frame charge against the
accused U/S 376 I.P.C. and thus,the formal charge under the said
section of law was framed against the accused Jahidul Hoque
and the same on being read over and explained to the accused
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 8(eight)

witnesses including the victim, the Medical Officer and the I.O. of
the case and also relied on some documents marked as
exhibits.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence and at the time of

examination of the accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C. no incriminating
materials found against the accused to put before him for
seeking his reply. In that view of the matter examination of the
accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7. Situated thus, the point for determination are set up and framed
hereunder:

(i)Whether the accused on 04/11/2014 at about 11 p.m. at

Khataniapara under Dhula P.S. committed rape on Miss Renu
Begum aged 16 years, daughter of the complainant Haque Miya
while she was coming towards her home from Maharam festival,
as alleged U/S 376 IPC?

(ii)Whether the accused on the same date, place and time as

above wrongfully confined Renu Begum?
 Page 4

8. I have heard argument canvassed by the learned counsel of both

the sides and also carefully gone through the entire evidence on
record.

DECISION THEREON WITH REASON FOR DECISION THEREFOR:

9. PW1 Hoque Miya. He is the first informant of the case. It is his

evidence that about two years ago on the day of Maharam at
night the accused Jahidul Hoque after gagging the mouth of his
daughter dragged to his home. He also assaulted his daughter
and thereafter sent her back. In that regard he gave a village
'bichar’, but the family members of the accused did not accept
the village bichar which culminated into lodging of the FIR before
the Police. He has also stated that the FIR was written by one
village headman of Hirapara namely Ikram and at the time of the
incident his victim daughter was 16 years old. It is his further
evidence that as he had given bichar in the village there was
delay in lodging the FIR.

10.In cross examination he has disclosed that on the day of

Maharam festival about 1000 people gathered at the venue.
Maharam was held in the field of Madrassa. His daughter did not
go to School on that day. Muzar Ali, Suku were given the
responsibility of holding the ‘ bichar’. He has denied that he had
not stated before the Police in his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. that
the accused had not dragged his daughter from the venue of
Maharam to his home and assaulted her.

11.PW2 Md. Ikram Hussain is the scribe of the FIR. According to his
evidence he has scribed the FIR marked as Ext.1 on the
instruction and as per version of the informant Hoque Miya and
having found the same correct the informant put the thumb
 Page 5

impression thereon. He has proved and marked the ext.1 as his

endorsement under the thumb impression of the informant
Hoque Miya, wherein ext.1(2) is his signature as scribe. In cross
examination he has stated that he has no personal knowledge
about the incident.

12.PW3 is the victim girl. She has testified to the effect that the
accused Jahidul is not known to her. It is her father who
instituted one case upon the accused. Police visited their home
and produced her before the Magistrate to record her statement
and after recording her statement she had put her thumb
impression. She was also medically examined. On the day of
occurrence Maharam programme was going on where she was
present with her friend and at that time some boys uttered some
vulgar words towards them. At the time of occurrence she was
with her friends Hasina. After returning from Maharam
programme she narrated the fact to her parents and thereafter
her father lodged the FIR.

13.In cross she has divulged that she was married about 4/5 years
ago before the incident. At the time of incident she was staying
in her parents home. Her statement was recorded by Magistrate.
But her version is a turned one. The accused jahidul Hoque had
not committed anything with her. Her father had lodged the case
on being asked by the village people.

14.PW4 Sarifa Begum is the mother of the victim. Refuting the

prosecution case she has disclosed that her daughter was not
kidnapped on the day of occurrence but her husband on being
asked by the village people had lodged the FIR against the
accused.
 Page 6

15.PW5 Jamal Fakir. His evidence does not disclose anything as

regards the incident except the fact that the accused Jahidul
Hoque and the victim are known to him.

16.The evidence of PW6 Masiran Begum is also in similar line to

that of PW4 and PW5 . She has no knowledge about the incident.

17.PW7 Hangsha Nath Thakuria is the I.O. of the case. It is his

evidence that on 15/02/16 while he was acted as S.I. of Police at
Dhula P.S. on that day O/C, Dhula P.S. handed over the case
diary of Dhula P.S. case No.552/14 U/S 376/342/34 IPC to him
which was investigated by SI Pran Gopal Chakraborty due to his
retirement to complete the investigation of the case. After going
through the case diary he found that the entire investigation of
the case was completed by the earlier I.O. of the case, only
charge sheet remained tro be submitted before the court. On
perusal of the case diary he found a prima-facie case against the
accused to send him for trial and accordingly, he submitted
charge sheet against the accused U/S 376 IPC. Ext.2 is charge
sheet, ext.2(1) is his signature.

18.In cross examination he has revealed that he acquainted with

the hand writing and signature of the Pran Gopal Chakraborty
who worked in the same Police Station before his
superannuation. Case diary reveals that PW1 Hoque Miya in his
statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. had not stated that the accused
Jahidul Hoque on the day of occurrence dragged his daughter
from the place of occurrence.

19.PW8 Drs. Mrs. Elora Chudhury is the medical Officer of the case.
According to her evidence on 06/11/2014 she was working as
Senior Medical and Health Officer at Mangaldai Civil Hospital. On
 Page 7

that day on Police requisition and in connection with Dhula PS

case No.552/14 U/S 376/342/34 IPC she examined the victim and
on examination she revealed that- (i)no comment could be given
regarding recent sexual intercourse, (ii) 3 injury marks detected
at chest , (iii) as per radiological examination the age of the
victim was 18 to 19 years. She has proved her medical report as
ext.3, wherein ext.3(1) is her signature.

20.In cross examination she has stated that bruises detected in the
uopper chest may have caused due to scratching.

21.While assaiying the evidence on record as discussed above, it is

manifest at the out set, that PW1 is the father of the victim girl.
In the instant case the accused is charged for alleged
commission of wrongful confinement and rape on the victim on
the day of occurrence. But the testimony of the first
informant(PW1), the father of the victim is quite contradictory to
the FIR(Ext.1) lodged by him. There is no specific evidence
adduced by PW1 as regards the commission of rape on the
victim by the accused except the fact that the accused gagged
her and dragged her to his home when his victim daughter was
enjoying Maharam festival in the field of the Madrassa at their
village. He has further stated that the accused assaulted his
daughter and thereafter sent her back and in that regard he
gave 'bichar' and when the family members of the accused did
not accept the village 'bichar' he lodged the FIR.

22.Though PW1 has stated only that his daughter was assaulted by
the accused dragging her to his home while she was at
Maharam festival being held at Madrassa field, but in this
respect this PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he
 Page 8

did not witness as to dragging of his daughter from the place of

occurrence by the accused.

23.In the light of the evidence of the PW1(informant) that he being

not the eye witness of the incident the evidence of the victim girl
is most vital to bring home the charges levelled against the
accused persons. But PW3 being the alleged victim of rape her
evidence is required to be sifted carefully to find out the
truthfulness of the case. Moreover, it is settled position of law
that in a rape case conviction of the accused can be based solely
on the evidence of the prosecutrix i.e. the victim girl(PW3) in this
case if her evidence is worthy of credence. The rule of
corroboration is not a rule of law, it is only a rule of prudence,
insistence on corroboration is advisible but it is not compulsory
in the eye of law. The nature and extent of corroboration
necessarily varies with the circumstances of its case. In other
words, if the narration of the prosecutrix is natural and inspires
confidence in the mind of the court and if the circumstances and
other evidence slightly support the case of the prosecution then
there arises no necessity of any corroboration on her statement.

24.If we proceed to analyse the evidence of victim(PW3) in the

light of the said principle as to the value of the evidence of the
prosecutrix(PW3) in the case that the victim has not adduced
implicating and legally admissible evidence to support the
ingredient of charges levelled against the accused persons. At
the outset of her evidence recorded as PW3, the victim has
categorically revealed that she does not know the accused. Nor
had he dragged her by gagging her mouth to his house when
she was enjoying Maharam programe being held at nearby field
of her home. She has disclosed a complete different version in
her in-chief that on the day of the occurrence while she was
 Page 9

enjoying the Maharam programme along with her three friends

at that time some boys had uttered some vulgar words towards
them. Thereafter, she narrated the fact to her parents and her
father lodged the FIR. Even in her cross examination she has
asserted that the accused Jahidul on the day of occurrence had
not committed anything to her and her statement though
recorded by Magistrate but she had given a tutored statement.

25.Thus, it is abundantly seen that this PW3 inspite of being the

most crucial witness of the case has shaken the credibility of the
prosecution case by adducing a discrepant version which is not
at all compatible and reconciable to the charge levelled against
the accused person. When there is not even a whisper made by
the victim as to the commission of rape on her as alleged then it
is obvious that no rape was committed on the victim(PW3). It is
also seen that the evidence of other witneses have also failed
to lend credence to the veracity of the prosecution case. There
is also not even a single circumstance to support the case of the
prosecution.

26.Summing up, it can be held unequivocably that there is no

believable and legally admissible evidence to bring home the
charege against the accused. Hence, the prosecution evidence is
totally discarded to accord a clean acquittal to the accused.

27.For that has has been discussed above and reasons therefor, I
hold that the accused Jahidul Hoque is not guilty U/S 376/342
I.P.C. and he is acquitted. Set him at liberty forthwith.

28.Bail bond executed by the accused and the surety shall remain
in force for another six months under the purview of Section
437(A) Cr.P.C.
 Page 10

Given under my hand and seal of this Court this 22 nd day of

September,2017.

Dictated and corrected by me and

each page bears my signatures.
(P.Saikia)
Sessions Judge,
Darrang,Mangaldai.
Sessions Judge,
Darrang,Mangaldai.

APPENDIX:

A)Prosecution witnesses:

i)PW1 Hoque Miya

ii)PW2 Ikram Hussain
iii)PW3 Renu Begum
iv)PW4 Sarifa Begum
v)PW5 Jamal Fakir
vi)PW6 Masiran Begum
vii)PW7 Hangsha Nath Thakuria
viii)PW8 Dr. Elora Choudhury.

B)Defence witness: Nil.

C)Exhibits:
i)Ext.1 FIR
ii)Ext.2 charge sheet.
iii)Ext.3 Medical report.

Sessions Judge,
Darrang,Mangaldai.
Page 11