Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Tripura High Court while upholding conviction of a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl said in the context of Indian culture, a woman-victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than falsely implicate someone as it brings them a lot of humiliation. Pramanik Dey (present accused) appellant was convicted by the POCSO Court under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and pay fine of 1000/-. In the case of the prosecution, it states that on 28.12.2013, the accused-appellant, forcibly took away the prosecutrix in a vehicle and made her spend the night in the house of his relative. The following day, she was taken to the forest where she was subjected to sexual assault.Prima facie finding the accused to have committed the crime along with his friends, prosecution presented the charge-sheet in the Court for trial. Independently, accused Pramanik Dey (appellant herein) was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 366A and 376(1) of IPC, as also under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Contentions by prosecution were raised that in the context of the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. 18. In the instant case, one finds the parties to hail from the remotest corner of the State of Tripura. In the context of Indian culture, a woman-victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than falsely implicate someone, for a statement of rape is extremely humiliating experience for a woman and unless she is a victim of sexual assault, she would ordinarily not blame anyone for the alleged crime.
Court even said that a statement of rape is extremely humiliating experience for a woman and unless she is a victim of sexual assault, she would ordinarily not blame anyone for the alleged crime.
In the instant case, there is nothing on record to establish previous friendship between the accused and the prosecutrix. In view of the defence taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., under the provisions of the Evidence Act, it was his duty to furnish some reasonable explanation of the stand taken by him. Why would the prosecutrix elope with the accused? They are not from the same village or the families known to each other or the victim and the accused having studied in the same school or having similar background or met in the past. What would a poor girl hailing from a remote area do when she is threatened and intimidated and forcibly taken away in a vehicle? All these cumulatively leads to the unflinching conclusion of the prosecution having established its case, beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused having committed the offence for which he stands convicted.
Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824