Bhaijan Morang vs The State Of Assam And Anr

GAHC010220182024


2026:GAU-AS:5451-DB

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

RL O OF
C .A. N . 363 2024

Sri Bhaijan Morang
S/o- Sri Moina Morang
R/o- Village Santipur, Ronganoi,
P.S- Dhemaji,
District- Dhemaji, Assam.


…….Appellant


-Versus-

1. State of Assam.
Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
Assam.
2. Smti. Padmawati Ngate,
D/o- Deveswar Ngate,
R/o- Adikolia Baligaon,
P.S- Dhemaji,
District- Dhemaji, Assam.



……. Respondents


– B E F O R E –

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Lal, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s) : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 .
Page 1 of 11

Ms. R. D. Mojumdar, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Date on which judgment
is reserved : N/A.

Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 21.04.2026

Whether the pronouncement
is of the operative part
of the judgment ? : No.

Whether the full judgment
has been pronounced : Yes.



UDGMENT RDER ( ORAL )
J & O

(Kaushik Goswami, J)
Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, and Ms. R. D.
Mojumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.
2.
2] This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
and sentence dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, Assam (hereinafter referred to as
the “trial court”), in Sessions Case No. 88/2017, whereby the
accused/appellant was convicted under Section 341/376 of
the IPC and was sentenced under Section 341 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) to
undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month and under
Section 376 of the IPC to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 25 (twenty five) years and to pay a fine of
Page 2 of 11

Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand); in default of payment
of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6 (six)
months.
3] The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24/02/2017,
the victim lodged an FIR at Dhemaji Police Station alleging,
inter alia, that on 23/02/2017 she arrived at Dhemaji Railway
Station from Jonai by train, thereafter boarded a tempo, and
got down at Forest Tiniali. At about 7:00 PM, while she was
proceeding alone through a field on her way home, the
accused/appellant, allegedly caught hold of her, threw her to
the ground, forcibly removed her wearing apparel, and
committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that after the
incident, the accused told her that he had enjoyed it,
challenged her to do whatever she wished, and then fled the
place. It is also the prosecution case that on an earlier
occasion, i.e., on 07/01/2017, when the victim met the
accused on the road, he allegedly pulled her hair, tore the
sporting garment she was wearing, and squeezed her neck, in
respect of which she had lodged an ejahar before the police
station. However, the said matter was subsequently
compromised, as both the victim and the accused belonged to
the same village and were related as brother and sister in the
social sense.
4] On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-in-Charge of
Dhemaji P.S. registered a case being Dhemaji P.S. Case No.
55/2017 under Sections 341/376 of the IPC. Upon completion
of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the
accused/appellant was put to trial.
Page 3 of 11

5] Charges under Sections 341/376 of the IPC were
framed by the trial court against the accused/appellant, to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6] The prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses including
the victim, her brothers and sister, the medical officer who
examined her, and the investigating officer. After closure of
prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) was recorded. The
accused denied the incriminating circumstances; however, he
did not adduce any evidence. Upon hearing the parties, the
trial court convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him
thereof. Situated thus, the present criminal appeal has been
preferred.
7] Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
submits that except for the victim, there is no other evidence
against the accused/appellant. He further submits that the
victim by filing an affidavit before this court in the connected
interlocutory application, i.e., I.A. (Crl) No. 132/2026, which
was disposed of by this court on 31.03.2026, has turned her
back on her deposition adduced before the trial court, which
is to the effect that she was raped by the accused/appellant.
He further submits that the medical evidence supports her
stand taken in the affidavit before this court to the effect that
the there was no rape committed on her. He accordingly
submits that the prosecution having not proved the guilt of
the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the
impugned conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law.
Page 4 of 11

8] Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
fairly submits that the victim who is personally present in the
court in terms of this court’s order dated 31.03.2026, upon
being questioned by her, has stated that she had filed the
case against the accused/appellant due to personal grudge
and no such incident alleged by her in the F.I.R. in question
has been committed by the accused/appellant. Hence, it
appears that the victim has lodged a false case against the
accused/appellant and he has been convicted therein for no
fault of his.
9] Similarly, Ms. R. D. Mojumdar, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2, submits that the affidavit filed by her on
behalf of the victim on 23.05.2025 in the interlocutory
application is as per the narration made to her by the
victim/respondent No. 2, which is to the effect that she was
having an intimate relationship with the accused/appellant
and that she could not say whether the sexual activity
between them was forceful or conscientious.
10] We have given our prudent considerations to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
11] The victim deposed as PW-1 during trial that while she
was walking along a connecting road from Jonai Forest Gate
to her house on 24.02.2017, the accused/appellant, who is
known to her and belongs to her village, approached her,
forcibly grabbed her, and raped her by the roadside.
Thereafter, he fled after threatening her. Accordingly, an FIR
Page 5 of 11

was lodged. Though a suggestion was put to her during
cross-examination that she had lodged a false case against
the accused/appellant, she denied the same.
12] It further appears from the deposition of the doctor
( PW-2 ), who medically examined the victim, that there were
no signs of forceful sexual intercourse. However, her hymen
was not intact, and the ultrasonography report indicated that
she was six months pregnant. No marks of violence were
detected on her body or private parts during medical
examination.
13] It further appears that her brothers, examined as PW-3
and PW-4 , deposed before the trial court that the victim
informed them that the accused/appellant had committed
rape upon her in a field. Similarly, her sister deposed as PW-
5.
14] It is evident from the trial court judgment that the
conviction is based solely on the testimony of the victim.
Undoubtedly, in a criminal case arising out of an offence of
rape, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the
victim, provided that such testimony inspires the confidence
of the Court.
15] It is pertinent that, in the interlocutory application filed
by the accused/appellant seeking suspension of sentence,
respondent No. 2/victim filed an affidavit before this Court on
23.05.2025, stating inter alia:
“4. That I state that due to some personal and
physical issues, I was not in a proper state of mind on
Page 6 of 11

the day of the alleged incident i.e. 24.02.2017. I
submit that I was having an intimate relationship with
the Accused/Appellant and I cannot say with
certainty that on that day i.e. 24.02.2017 my sexual
activity with the Accused/Appellant was forceful or
conscientious.
5. That I state that I have settled the issue with the
Accused/Appellant as the FIR was filed upon
mistaken facts. Furthermore, I came to know that at
the time of occurrence the Accused/Appellant was
juvenile.
6. That I state that due to the sentence of 25 years
imprisonment to the Accused/Appellant his whole life
would be ruined. He was a juvenile at the time of the
offence.
7. That I state that I made the statement in the FIR as
also before the learned Magistrate out of fear. I further
state that I adduced the evidence before the Court on
mistaken facts under duress. However, with the
passage of time, more particularly when the sentence
has been inflicted upon the Accused/ Appellant I have
decided to settle the issue as an innocent Juvenile is
being punished.
8. That I state that both the parties have agreed and
we have no grievance against each other and we have
no objection if the Accused/Appellant is acquitted and
the instant criminal appeal is allowed.”
16] A careful reading of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the
victim indicates a material departure from her version during
trial. While before the trial court she alleged forcible sexual
assault, in the said affidavit, she stated that she was in an
intimate relationship with the accused/appellant and
expressed uncertainty as to whether the sexual act on the
date of occurrence was without consent. She further
described the accused/appellant as innocent and a juvenile at
the time of the incident. At the same time, the medical
Page 7 of 11

evidence (PW-2) does not indicate any signs of forceful sexual
intercourse or physical injury.
17] On a cumulative reading of the materials on record,
including the affidavit filed by the victim, it emerges that the
relationship between the victim and the accused/appellant
was consensual in nature. It is not in dispute that both the
victim and the accused/appellant were adults at the time of
the alleged occurrence. There is no material to indicate that
the consent, if any, was vitiated by force, coercion,
misconception of fact, or any circumstance recognised in law
so as to attract the ingredients of the offence alleged under
the IPC. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to
establish the foundational ingredients of the offence beyond
reasonable doubt.
18] It is noteworthy that this Court, on 31.03.2026, upon
taking note of the stand of the victim in the affidavit and
being prima facie satisfied that the accused/appellant may be
innocent, was pleased to release him on bail. Further,
considering that the medical report suggested that the victim
was pregnant at the time of medical examination, this Court
directed her to appear in person at the time of hearing of the
appeal to clarify the contents of her affidavit dated
23.05.2025 and to state whether any child had been born.
19] Today, when the matter was taken up, the victim (Smti.
Padmawati Ngate) as well as the accused/appellant (Shri
Bhaijan Morang) were present in person. Upon being
questioned regarding his age, the accused/appellant stated
Page 8 of 11

that he is 33 years old, which implies that he was not a
juvenile at the time of the incident in 2017. The victim, upon
being asked whether any child was born pursuant to the
alleged pregnancy, stated that she was not pregnant at the
time of her medical examination.
20] In the present case, the version of the prosecutrix has
undergone substantial variations at different stages namely in
the FIR, her deposition during trial, the affidavit filed before
this court, and her statement made during her interaction
today. Such inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution
case and render it unsafe to place implicit reliance on her
testimony without independent corroboration.
21] This court, therefore considered it appropriate to
interact with the victim in camera. During such interaction,
the victim in the presence of her counsel, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the
appellant, unequivocally stated that the accused/appellant
had not committed any sexual assault upon her and that the
FIR was lodged due to a dispute between her family and the
accused/appellant. She further clarified that there was neither
any sexual relationship nor any incident of rape and that she
was not pregnant at the time of the alleged medical
examination. It further emerged that she was already married
and had a child aged 17 years at the time of the occurrence.
22] The statement made by the victim before this court,
coupled with the absence of medical evidence supporting the
allegation of force and the inconsistencies in her earlier
Page 9 of 11

versions, creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the
prosecution case. In criminal jurisprudence, such doubt must
necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused.
23] Insofar as the contention regarding the
accused/appellant being a juvenile at the time of the incident
is concerned, the same stands negated by his own statement
before this Court regarding his age, which indicates that he
was not a juvenile in the year 2017. However, this aspect
does not materially affect the core issue relating to the
commission of the alleged offence.
24] In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish
the charge against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. The conviction recorded by the trial court, being based
solely on a testimony that is inconsistent and unreliable,
cannot be sustained in law.
25] We are, therefore, of the unhesitant view that the
impugned conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court
solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim are wholly
unsustainable. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, Assam in Sessions Case No.
88/2017 are hereby set aside and quashed.
26] The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
27] Resultantly, the accused/appellant is acquitted of all
charges levelled against him.
Page 10 of 11

28] The bail bonds furnished by the accused/appellant stand
discharged.
29] The act of respondent No. 2 in lodging a false criminal
case against the accused/appellant, thereby jeopardising his
life for no fault of his own, renders her open to the charge/
offence of perjury. However, considering her background and
the fact that she is married with a 17-year-old child, we
refrain from directing prosecution for perjury.
30] Return the TCR.


JUDGE JUDGE


Comparing Assistant




Pranab

Chand
ra Das
Digitally signed
by Pranab
Chandra Das
Date:
2026.04.22
11:02:51
+05'30'
Page 11 of 11