SANTOSH GURUNG Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails his conviction for the offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(i), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short, 'the Penal Code'] along with his conviction under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Sessions Court sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment in view of his conviction and the High Court of Sikkim [For short, 'the High Court'] in appeal has maintained the same.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 6/11/2013 at about 09.00 a.m., the appellant was asked by his mother [For short, 'the complainant'] to go and purchase some vegetables. The appellant asked his maternal niece [For short, 'the victim'] to accompany him. However, the complainant did not permit him to take her along. According to the prosecution, the appellant, however, took the victim from the house. When the appellant and the victim did not return after some time, the complainant searched for them. She informed the victim's mother that her child was missing. On 12/11/2013, the complainant lodged a Missing Report at Rongli Police Station giving details of the victim as well as her maternal uncle, the appellant. The appellant was traced at Siliguri much later. As per the First Information Report [For short, 'FIR'] dtd. 13/5/2014, the appellant while being brought back from Siliguri to Rongli had stated that he had raped the victim and had, thereafter, throttled her to death on 6/11/2013. An offence was, accordingly, registered and investigation was conducted. At the conclusion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed. The appellant denied the charge and was, accordingly, tried. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and relied upon various circumstances to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The defence of the appellant was of denial. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court by the judgement dtd. 20/4/2016 held the appellant guilty and, accordingly, sentenced him in the manner stated hereinabove.

(3.) Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, 'the Code'] challenging his conviction. The High Court, on a re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, affirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court and upheld the appellant's conviction. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come up in appeal.