SONMONI ALIAS PRASANTA ALIAS SANTANU BORDOLOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 119/2000 and 273/2000.

(2.) The present appeals, which have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 31.7.2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Session Case No. 49(J-j) of 1993, convicting the accused-appellants under Sections 448/323/376(2)(g)/34 IPC and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under the first and the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 (six) months, on the third count, with direction that the sentences shall run consecutively, reminds us of one of the most salutary principles of our criminal jurisprudence, which requires the Court to presume the accused facing trial as innocent until his guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Though basic and often-repeated, this salutary principle, at times, gets overlooked if the facts, placed before the Court, disclose commission of a heinous and gruesome offence. Though gruesome nature of offence may have a bearing and. telling effect on the sentence that may be passed against the accused, if he is proved guilty of the charge, the nature of offence: shall not be allowed by the Judge to blur his vision and his approach to, and appreciation of, the evidence on record and he shall keep his mind free from the effects that the facts of the case may have on him In the case at hand, the horrendous nature of the description of the offence appears to have influenced the learned trial Court and blurred its vision and made it to appreciate the evidence on record with emotionally charged heart and mind.

(3.) Turning from the above prefatory remarks, let me, now, come to the case of the prosecution, which gets unfolded at the trial as follows:- Prosecution case begins with lodging of a written ejahar by one Shri Gopal Roy, on 29.1.93, at Pulibar Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 28/1/92, at about 12 O'Clock at night, accused Sonmoni and 4 (four) other youths came to the house of the informant, called him out, assaulted him, and tied him to a post behind their house and, thereafter, all the said 5 (five) youths committed rape on his wife, Maina Rai, and after having done so, they left the house of the informant between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. and that informant's wife knew the accused Sonmoni and also 4(four) other youths, although she did not know their names and that it was at about 6 a.m. that his wife had untied him. Based on this ejahar and treating the same as First Information Report, Pulibar P.S.Case No. 8/93 under Sections 448/357/376(2)(g) IPC was registered against the accused Sonmoni and four others. During the course of investigation, the victim woman was medically examined and, on completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet, against the present two appellants namely, Sonmoni @ Prasanta @ Santanu Bordoloi and Prasanta Hazarika @ Kalia and 3 others under Section 448/357/323/376(2)(g) IPC.