High Court Of Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 405 Tri

                              Page 1



                HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                          AGARTALA
                       Crl. A. 12/2020
Sri Srikanta Hrishi Das
son of Sri Krishna Hrishi Das, resident of Bhati Abhoynagar, Madhyadip,
P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura
                                                            ----Appellant
             Versus
The State of Tripura                             ----Respondent
For Appellant(s)                :      Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
For Respondent(s)               :      Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. PP
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order             :      06.04.2022
Whether fit for reporting       :      No

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

Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned Additional PP appearing for the respondent-State.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction and

sentence dated 28.02.2020 passed in connection with case No. Special

(POCSO) 12 of 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West

Tripura, Agartala, whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge, West

Tripura, Agartala had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for

short "POCSO"), sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 3 (three) year and to pay a

fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation, and also sentenced him to suffer

R.I. for 6 (six) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for commission of Page 2

offence punishable under section 451 IPC, and further sentenced him to suffer

R.I. for 1 (one) month for commission of offence under Section 323 IPC.

3. Briefly stated, a complaint was lodged with the Officer-in-Charge of

West Agartala Women police station stating inter alia that on 06.01.2018

when the complainant returned to her house in the evening at about 7:00 PM,

at that time, one Noni Gopal Das came to her house to provide meat. At that

point of time, the accused Shrikanta Hrishi Das had trespassed her house and

assaulted her and also caused damage to her hut. After hearing hue and cry,

the neighbouring people arrived at the spot. She went to hospital for treatment,

but, did not take admission for the reason that her daughters were alone in the

house. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused Shrikanta Hrishi

Das had molested her daughter on 06.01.2018 which was divulged to her by

her daughter on 07.01.2018.

4. The said complaint was registered as West Agartala Women PS case

no. 03 of 2018 under Sections 448/354(B)/323 of IPC and under Section 12 of

the POCSO Act. The matter was investigated by the investigating officer and

after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet being no. 32 of 2018,

dated 31.05.2018 against the accused appellant, here-in-after referred to as the

"accused".

5. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed against the accused

under Section 451/354/323 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, to

which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 3

6. The prosecution to establish the charges had examined as many as 11

witnesses and introduced some documents (Exbt 1 to 12). After closure of

recording evidences, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

wherein he stated that all the allegations leveled against him were false and he

was falsely implicated in the case.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned

Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as afore-stated. Being

aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of conviction

and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

8. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that

the learned Special Judge has mis-directed himself in convicting the accused

in connection with the case. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the

prosecution has miserably failed to establish as to when the incident had

actually occurred. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the accused has drawn the

attention of this court to various discrepancies as surfaced in the evidences of

the prosecution witnesses.

9. Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional PP has submitted that though there are

some improved versions in the prosecution witnesses, but, the findings of the

learned Special Judge should not be disturbed.

10. I have considered the submissions for learned counsel appearing for the

parties. I have perused the evidences and materials on record and the

judgment passed by the learned Special Judge.

Page 4

11. After careful scrutiny of the evidences on record, I find that the

complainant (PW-1) has stated in her complaint that she was assaulted by the

accused on 06.01.2018, and after hearing her hue and cry PW-4 and alongwith

her husband, namely, Nani Gopal Das came to the spot along with other

neighbouring people, and at that time, the accused had entered into her house

and physically assaulted her after causing some damage to her hut. Her two

daughters were also assaulted by the accused. She further deposed that on

07.01.2018 her daughter, aged about 9 years, told her that she was molested

by the accused on 06.01.2018 in the afternoon. According to her, she went to

the hospital. However, medical report of one of her daughters (name withheld)

which were collected by the investigating officer reveals that all of them

visited the hospital on 06.01.2018 at about 11:45 p.m., but, surprisingly in the

medical examination reports of the hospital no date and time has been

mentioned, even there is no registration number of the hospital. The daughter

of the complainant (PW-1) was medically examined, and the doctor opined

that there was no external and internal injury on her body. The question is

when the medical reports, as collected by the investigating officer, reveals that

there were some injuries on the person of the complainant and her daughter as

they were examined on 06.01.2018, then, how no such injuries were detected

when she was medically examined on 08.01.2018.

12. After perusal of the evidences, I find that the complainant said that the

accused had asked the victim girl to give him the key of the room to open the Page 5

lock, and she also asked her elder sister to go outside the room, and after

entering into the room the accused had molested the victim girl, aged about 9

years. The question is, if the girl was inside the room, then, how she had given

the key to the accused. Furthermore, the complainant stated that at the point of

outraging the modesty of her daughter, her elder daughter was not in the

house, but, the victim girl (PW2) as well as her elder sister (PW-3) deposed

that they were playing together in their house.

13. Another important aspect is that, PW-3, the elder daughter of the

complainant deposed that the accused asked her to go outside the hut, and

thereafter, he removed the pant of her younger sister, and thereafter, tortured

her. When this witness, i.e. the elder sister of the victim girl was asked

question as to what sort of torture was done by the accused, she remained

silent. She further deposed that when the neighbouring people came to the

spot, at that time also the accused was standing outside their home. It is also

noticed that Nani Gopal Das who went to the house of the complainant

alongwith meat to give the same to the complainant was not examined without

any explanation. Smt. Ratna Sarkar (Das) (PW-4), wife of Sri Nani Gopal

Das, though appeared at the spot, but, did not say anything about the

allegation of molestation, as alleged by the complainant. She only said that the

accused had assaulted the complainant. In cross-examination she admitted that

she did not state to the police that the daughter of the complainant told her that

the accused had opened her pant, rather she stated to the police that she did

not tell anything to her. She also admitted in cross-examination that she did Page 6

not state to the police that hearing cry of the daughter of the complainant she

entered into their hut. She admitted that she only stated to the police that her

husband went to the house of the complainant to give meat for the daughters

of the complaint.

14. On overall consideration of the evidences and materials on record, I

find that there are serious discrepancies, which creates doubt in the mind of

this court about the very genesis and genuineness of the allegations levelled

against the accused. As such, I cannot agree with the findings as arrived at by

the learned Special Judge while convicting and sentencing the accused.

Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

28.02.2020 as recorded by the Ld. Special Judge (POCSO Act), West Tripura,

Agartala, in Special (POCSO) 12 of 2018, stand set-aside and quashed. The

appeal stands allowed.

15. It is informed that the accused-appellant is on bail. Accordingly, the

accused-appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond and his

surety is also discharged.

Send down the LCRs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.

JUDGE

Puri