High Court Of Tripura vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 373 Tri

                             Page 1 of 4




                HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                    Crl. A(J) 4/2020
Sri Kamal Tripura
son of Sri Falgun Tripura, resident of Bangshi Sarder Para,
South Kaladhepa, P.S. Manubazer, District- South Tripura
                                                 ----Appellant
             Versus
The State of Tripura                                   ----Respondent
For the Appellant(s)             :      Mr. A. Das, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)            :      Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. PP
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order        :            28.03.2022
Whether fit for reporting        :      Yes/No

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

28/03/2022 Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

Mr. S Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the

respondent-State.

2. The appellant, by means of filing the present appeal has challenged

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2019

passed by the learned Special Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in

connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 3 of 2019 wherein the

appellant has been convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to

pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of a complaint

lodged by the victim that she was forcibly abducted on 06.01.2018 at

night at about 11.00 a.m. She was lifted by Suman @ Sukhen Tripura and

Kamal Tripura, and was raped by said Suman @ Sukhen Tripura.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered a case vide

Manubazaar PS case no. 2018/MNB/002 under Sections 366(A)/343/

376/34 of the IPC. Investigation was carried out, and after completion of

investigation charge sheet under Section 366(A)/114 of IPC was

submitted against the accused, namely, Kamal Tripura. At the

commencement of trial, charge was framed against the appellant, Kamal

Tripura under Sections 366/376(3) of IPC read with section 109 IPC and

under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, to which the appellant pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution had examined as

many as 16 witnesses and introduced 21 documents, which were brought

on record by way of marking as Exhibits 1 to 21. After completion of

recording of prosecution evidences, the accused person was examined

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he repeated the plea of his innocence.

After hearing argument of both the parties, the learned Special Judge had

convicted the appellant under section 366 IPC and sentenced him as

aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order of

conviction and sentence, the appellant, Kamal Tripura has preferred the

instant appeal.

6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted

that the victim girl had voluntarily left with the appellant. Learned

counsel has drawn my attention to the deposition of PW-1, the victim

herein.

7. I have gone through the said deposition of PW-1. She had deposed

that on the fateful date and time she was waiting on the road side of

Debendrapara for going to Manubazar. At that point of time both Suman

Tripura @ Sukhen Tripura and Kamal Tripura, the appellant herein, had

reached there in a bike and forcibly abducted her. She raised alarm with

loud voice, but, she was taken to the jungle. The appellant had left the

place, but, Sukhen Tripura had kept her for 2 days when she was forced

to make intercourse. However, this appeal will be confined to the offence

as alleged to have been committed by the appellant, Kamal Tripura.

8. The only question remains as to whether the statement of the

victim (PW-1) that she was forcibly abducted from the place where she

was standing on the road side on that fateful date and time is trustworthy

or not. From her deposition, it comes to fore that there was a grocery shop

close to the place of occurrence where she was standing and also there

was a school. It was a broad daylight i.e. at 11.00 a.m. In my opinion, the

victim girl had raised her voice loudly, then, the grocery-shop-owner,

whose name is Ajit Dey, must have heard her voice and also there were

school students. Even on her way enroute to the jungle she did not try to

raise alarm. So, her statements that she was forcibly abducted appears not

to be convincing to this court and I find force in the submission of learned

counsel for the appellant that she accompanied the appellant on her own

wish and volition.

9. Accordingly, I find enough merit in this appeal to discharge the

appellant from the charge levelled against him. Consequently, the

conviction and sentence as returned have no force. The judgment and

order of conviction and sentence as recorded by learned Judge against the

appellant, Kamal Tripura, stand set aside and quashed.

10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The appellant, Kamal

Tripura, is hereby acquitted. It is informed that the appellant is on bail.

Accordingly, he is discharged from his bail bond. The surety is also

discharged from his liability.

Send down the LCRs

JUDGE

Puri