Sikkim High Court Upholds Conviction Of 24-Yr-Old For Committing Rape On His Grandmother
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the conviction of a twenty-four-year-old man under Sections 376(2)(f) (committing rape against a relative), 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC for committing rape upon his maternal grandmother, aged about eighty years.The division bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj...
The Sikkim High Court has upheld the conviction of a twenty-four-year-old man under Sections 376(2)(f) (committing rape against a relative), 376(2)(n) (committing rape repeatedly on the same woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC for committing rape upon his maternal grandmother, aged about eighty years.
The division bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai and Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan decided on the appellant's challenge against the judgment of the Fast Track Sessions Court.
The victim (PW-2) was living with her daughter (PW-3), son-in-law and their son, the appellant. When PW-3 returned from her visit to West Bengal, she could not find PW-2 at home. Later, she discovered that PW-2 was at her neighbour's house and refused to return home. PW-2 disclosed that the appellant committed rape on her.
While lodging the FIR, she mentioned that the appellant would chase and touch her inappropriately in a drunken condition. She also mentioned that he was incarcerated before and that he threatened to kill her if she told anyone about his actions.
The High Court noted that the Trial Court carefully analysed and appreciated the evidence on record. It stated that the Trial Court considered the delay in lodging the FIR by noting that the victim was hesitant to speak about the incident or report it to the police as the perpetrator was her own grandson.
The High Court remarked “The Learned Trial Court therefore found no reason to disbelieve the victim a senior citizen, who at her age was unlikely to make such allegation against her own grandchild unless she was left with no option.”
The High Court stated that the victim during her deposition in trial 'unequivocally reiterated the facts' stated by her in FIR. The Court also noted that the medical examination report did not rule out sexual assault upon the victim.
Observing that the Trial Court meticulously examined the case, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Case title: XX vs. State of Sikkim (Crl. A. No.07 of 2023)
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Sik) 10