Tripura High Court
Shri Sarathi Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 16 May, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A. No.01/2023 in Crl.A. No.06/2023
Shri Sarathi Sarkar
......... Appellant-Applicant(s).
VERSUS
The State of Tripura
.........Respondent(s).
For Appellant-Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Ghosh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
16/05/2023
By this interlocutory application, Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/applicant, has prayed for suspension of the order
of conviction and sentence of the appellant/applicant. The appellant/
applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 of
the POCSO Act read with Section 448 of the IPC by the impugned judgment
dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West
Tripura, Agartala in case No. Special (POCSO) 22 of 2019 and has been
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3(three) years with a fine
of Rs.20,000/- under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and also sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for 6(six) months with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with
default sentences for the offences punishable under Section 448 of the IPC
by the impugned order of sentence of the same date.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the
date of occurrence is 12.01.2019 but the FIR was lodged on 13.01.2019 at 7
p.m. It is submitted that the appellant is the elder brother of PW-5, Sri
Ranjan Nag, who is the husband of the sister of the informant's husband
(PW-1). It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer (PW-10) has not
been able to show any birth certificate to prove the age of the victim. There
is a difference in the age of the victim as per the mother of the victim and as
per the victim herself. It is also evident that PW-9, Smti. Sushmita Sarkar, is
a hearsay witness and a neighbour and there are difference in the statement
made by her with that stated before the police under Section 161 of the
Cr.P.C. Even the victim has in her statement named the appellant as her
uncle. There are several infirmities in the prosecution evidence. Therefore,
the appellant who was all along on bail during trial may be granted the
privilege of suspension of sentence during pendency of this criminal appeal.
Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has opposed
the prayer.
However, on consideration of the facts and circumstances and
that the appellant/applicant has been sentenced to undergo a maximum of
3(three) years of imprisonment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and that,
he has remained all along on bail during trial, I am inclined to grant the
privilege of bail to the appellant/applicant by suspending the sentence during
pendency of this appeal subject to deposit of fine of Rs.15,000/- (rupees
fifteen thousand) in the Court below within a period of two weeks. The
applicant, however, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) with two sureties each of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), West
Tripura, Agartala.
I.A. stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Pulak
