High Court Of Tripura vs Shri Sanjit Das
2021 Latest Caselaw 349 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 2



                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                              Crl. A. 9/2019
      Miss Runika Das
      daughter of Sri Kamal Kanta Das
      (being minor represented by her father)
      Sri Kamal Kanta Das,
      son of late Srikrishna Das, resident of Rangamati, P.S. Birganj,
      District- Gomati, Tripura
                                                                  ----Appellant
                   Versus
 1.   Shri Sanjit Das
      son of Sri Shyamchan Das, resident of Rangamati, P.S. Birganj,
      District- Gomati, Tripura
 2.   The State of Tripura
                                                                  ----Respondents
For Appellant(s)               :      Mr.   SB Deb, Advocate
For Respondent(s)              :      Mr.   TD Majumder, Sr. Advocate
                                      Mr.   B. Debbarma, Advocate
                                      Mr.   S. Debnath, Addl. PP
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order        :          16.03.2021
Whether fit for reporting  :          Yes / No

                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
                         JUDGMENT(ORAL)

16/03/2021 Heard Mr. SB Deb, learned counsel for the defecto-complainant, the appellant herein as well as TD Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Debbarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, the accused. Also heard Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing for the State-respondent.

2. The present appeal has been preferred before this court under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction under Section 448 IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act with a sentence to release the accused on probation vide judgment dated 28.01.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. Special 14 (POCSO) of 2016. The State-respondent has not preferred any appeal against the said sentence as passed by the learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur.

3. Mr. SB Deb, learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant has submitted that the sentencing part of the learned Special Judge is under challenge and the defacto-complainant claims compensation from the accused.

4. After perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the defacto-complainant i.e. the appellant has no grievance on the conviction of the accused person under Section 448 IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

5. Since, the defacto-complainant claims compensation, in my opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) only has to be paid by the accused- respondent to the victim i.e. the defacto-complainant. It is further ordered that the said compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- has to be deposited before the court of learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur within a period of 2 (two) months from today. After receipt of the said compensation amount, the learned court shall pay the same to the victim within the next 2 (two) weeks. It is made clear that if the accused fails to deposit the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the victim, then, he shall suffer R.I. for a period of 1(one) year for commission of offence punishable under Section 448 IPC and also shall suffer R.I. for 3 (three) years for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act for the reason that, I find no sufficient material to convict the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but, ingredient of section 7 of the POCSO Act is apparent. In that case, both the sentences shall run concurrently.

7. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge is accordingly modified in the above terms.

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed and thus disposed of.

Send down the LCRs.

JUDGE

Saikat