Sri Sanjay Das vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 273 Tri

                              Page 1 of 6




                     THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                        CRL A 43 OF 2019

      Sri Sanjay Das,
      S/o Lt. Mahendra Das, resident of
      Dhuptali, Udaipur, PS- Kakraban,
      District- Gomati Tripura.
                                                      .... Appellant
            - Vs -

      The State of Tripura,
                                                     ....Respondent

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

For the appellant : Mr. Samar Das, Advocate

For the respondent : Mr. S. Debnath Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Date of hearing and           : 04.03.2021
date of delivery of
Judgment & Order

Whether fit for reporting : NO

                      Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant as well as Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of

conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2019, passed in ST 53(GT/U) of

2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati District,

Udaipur, whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted

under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 1 (one)

year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

3. Briefly stated, that on 26.11.2002 at morning about 7:00

am, when the victim girl was proceeding towards Sadhu Ram Reang

Bari School for the purpose of her examination, the appellant here-in

took her forcibly from Rani-Killa Road to a jungle and committed

rape upon her and also tore her wearing apparels. Subsequently,

accused-appellant threatened her not to disclose the aforesaid incident

to anybody.

4. On this allegation, the victim herself lodged complaint on

26.11.2002 against the accused-appellant and O.C., R.K. Pur Police

Station registered a case being RK Pur PS Case No.323, dated

26.11.2002, under Section 376 of IPC.

5. After commitment, learned Sessions Judge framed charge

against the accused-appellant under Section 376 (1) of IPC. In course

of trial, as many as 14 witnesses were examined. The vaginal swab

and the wearing clothes were also brought on record and were

exhibited.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was

examined under Section 313 of CrPC to which he denied all the

incriminating evidence and materials as surfaced against him by the

prosecution witnesses.

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the

parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under

Section 354 of IPC since charge under Section 376(1) IPC was not

substantiated by the prosecution.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the convict has preferred the instant

appeal challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 354 of

IPC.

9. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted that at the time of incident, the victim girl was aged about

14 years and she deposed after long 14 years before the court.

Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incident. Though she stated

during her evidence that while she was going to school on 26.11.2002,

at about 7:00 am, the accused had forcefully taken her to a jungle. Mr.

Das, learned counsel has candidly submitted that the victim girl had

filed the instant case only out of political rivalry since she was a

hardcore CPIM cadre and the accused was a supporter of Congress

Party and she lodged the complaint just on the eve of election

preventing him to work for Congress Party.

10. The victim girl was examined as PW-1 and she reiterated

her statement which she made in the complaint. Both learned Addl.

P.P. and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant have drawn my

attention to the deposition of PW-2, Sri Nirosh Marak and PW-9, Sri

Jagadish Marak. It transpires from the deposition of PW-2 and PW-9

that after the incident she went to the house of PW-9 but the victim,

noticeably deposed that she narrated the incident to PW-9 while she

was returning home after the incident. It casts serious doubt in the

mind of the court about the genesis of the incident. All other witnesses

have heard the incident from PW-1. This leads me to have a glimpse

of the medical examination of the victim girl. In the medical report

(Exbt.6 as a whole), the Doctor clearly opined that there was no sign

of recent sexual violence found on her body except some abrasions

over the back elbow and left scapula. No other marks of force of

resistance found on her body. The vaginal swab also was examined by

SFSL and the Doctor opined that there is no sign of any sexual

intercourse and no spermatozoa was found.

11. I have seen the sketch map to find out the nature of the

place of occurrence. The sketch map does not reveal anything about

the fact where the house of the victim girl is situated and where is the

house of PW-9 because the specific case of the victim is that after the

incident she went to the house of Jagadish Marak. From the deposition

of other witnesses, it further reveals that the victim even did not return

to her house but she was taken to the nearby CPI (M) party office by

Jagadish Marak (PW-9). It appears that the brother of the victim girl

i.e. PW-2 was the elected Panchayat member from CPI (M) party.

12. Another interesting feature, which I find in the instant

case, is that, the victim girl deposed in her evidence that she was

going to school to appear in her examination. Neither the victim nor

her parents have stated that she appeared in the examination after the

incident. But, PW-10, Sri Ashutosh Das, the Headmaster of the school

where the victim was prosecuting her studies, appeared before the

court and stated in his deposition that after the incident the victim had

appeared in her examination on the said date.

13. On culmination of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

as evinced from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in my

opinion, there is enough room to suspect the genesis of the

prosecution case. The sexual violence is also not supported by medical

evidence.

14. In the light of above, the conviction and sentence passed

by the learned Sessions Judge cannot sustain. Accordingly, the

judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.08.2019,

passed in ST 53(GT/U) of 2015, by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur stands set aside. The appellant is

acquitted. It is informed in the Bar that he is on bail. He is discharged

from the bail bond. The surety is also discharged.

15. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed and disposed off.

Send back the LCRs.

JUDGE