GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON RAVI KUMAR BHOWEL V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

GUWAHATI, India, Oct. 25 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Sept. 25:

1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for the State and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no. 2.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Sessions Special Case No.46/2022, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was thereafter sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 25 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, in terms of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant (PW-2), who is also the son of the accused appellant, submitted an FIR dated 04.05.2022, to the O/c of the All Woman Police Station, Panbazar, Guwahati, stating that his father, who had married another woman having 3 children, had raped one of them, who was 17 years old, for the last 4 years. However, the victim could not tell anyone and she had recently told him about the same, as it had become unbearable. In pursuance to the FIR, All Woman P.S. Case No.30/2022 under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered.

4. After investigation of the case was completed and the victim had been examined by a medical Doctor, a charge-sheet was submitted, wherein a prima facie case under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act had been found established against the appellant for raping his step daughter. Charge under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 6 prosecution witnesses (PWs) and 2 defence witnesses (DWs), consisting of the appellant (DW-1) and his second wife (DW-2). After examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had raped his minor step daughter, who was 17 years of age and as such, he was convicted Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

6. The appeal has been filed by the appellant, on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence of the defence witnesses and has instead brushed aside the evidence given by the defence witnesses.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 351, the evidence of the defence witnesses are entitled to equal respect and treatment as that of the prosecution witnesses and that the evidence tendered by them cannot always be termed to be a tainted one.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the explanation given by the appellant with regard to the year from which the victim started living with the appellant, clearly belied the evidence of the prosecution and PW-2, which was to the effect that rape had been committed by the appellant for the last 4 years, counting from the date the FIR had been filed. However, the learned Trial Court had not considered the defence taken by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which resulted in the trial being vitiated, as the same had caused prejudice to the appellant.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqLEydwV86nR8B70rdIDHZoLFHEgUKY%2FyX8LwcvdsB5sF&caseno=Crl.A./158/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010023342024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.