Tripura High Court
Md. Dudhu Miah vs The State Of Tripura on 19 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A(J)No.23 of 2023
CRL.A(J)No.24 of 2023
CRL.A(J)No.28 of 2023
In CRL.A(J)No.23 of 2023
1. Md. Dudhu Miah,
Son of Md. Rafik Miah,
Resident of Shibnagar,
P.S. Melaghar, District: Sepahijala Tripura
(Sl. No.4 of the judgment and order dated 04.03.2023)
2. Md. Samiman Hossain Alias Nayan,
Son of Md. Suruj Miah,
Resident of Rangamati, P.S. Sonamura,
District: Sepahijala, Tripura
(Sl. No.5 of the judgment and order dated 04.03.2023)
----Convict-Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
----Respondent(s)
In CRL.A(J)No.24 of 2023
1. Md. Saddam Hossain,
Son of Late Safik Miah,
Resident of Khedabari,
P.S. Sonamura, District: Sepahijala Tripura
(Sl. No.2 of the judgment and order dated 04.03.2023)
2. Md. Rabban Ali, Age: 30,
Son of Md. Bajlu Miah,
Resident of Kdedabari,
District: Sepahijala, Tripura
(Sl. No.3 of the judgment and order dated 04.03.2023)
----Convict-Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
----Respondent(s)
Md. Tajul Islam,
Son of Late Safik Miah,
Resident of Khedabari,
P.S. Sonamura, District: Sepahijala Tripura
----Convict-Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura
----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Adv.
Mr. T. D. Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. P. Majumder, Adv.
Mr. P. Biswas, Adv.
Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. R. Nath, Adv.
Mr. T. Halam, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Date of Hearing : 22.04.2024
Date of delivery of
Judgment and Order : 19.06.2024
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
[B. Palit, J]
These three appeals have been preferred challenging
the common judgment dated 04.03.2023 and also against
the date of sentencing order dated 06.03.2023 delivered by
the Special Judge, Court No.2, Gomati Judicial District,
Udaipur of convicting the appellants in Case No.Special 01
of 2022. By the said judgment the convict appellants Md.
Tajul Islam, Md. Saddam Hossain, Md. Rabban Ali, Md.
Dudhu Miah and Md. Samiman Hossain have been
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one
month with fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 341 of IPC
in default to suffer R.I. for three days. All the convicts also
have been sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years with fine of
Rs.2,000/- each under Section 324 of IPC in default to
suffer R.I. for one month and the convicts have been
sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of seven years with fine
of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 366 of IPC in default to
suffer R.I. for three months and the convicts have been
further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life which shall
mean imprisonment for the remainder of those convicts
natural life and with fine of Rs.50,000/- each under Section
376 D of IPC in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The
convicts have been further sentenced to suffer R.I. for life
with fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 120B of IPC in
default to suffer R.I. for three months. Further they were
sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of three years with fine
of Rs.3000/- each under Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 in default to suffer R.I. for three months. They were
further sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years with fine of
Rs.5,000/- under Section 2(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in
default to suffer R.I. for four months. By the said judgment
of conviction and sentence it was ordered that all the
sentences shall run concurrently and the fine money if
realized shall be handed over to the victim as
compensation.
02. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, Learned Senior counsel
assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, Learned counsel, Mr. P.
Biswas, Learned counsel and Mr. R. Nath, Learned counsel
representing the appellant Md. Tajul Islam, Mr. T. D.
Majumder, Learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. T.
Halam, Learned counsel appearing for the appellants Md.
Saddam Hossain and Md. Rabban Ali and Mr. J.
Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel along with Mr. S. Ghosh,
Learned counsel representing the appellants Md. Dudhu
Miah and Md. Samiman Hossain alias Nayan and also heard
Mr. Raju Datta, Learned P.P. representing the
prosecution/state-respondent.
03. Before entering into the merit of the case let us
discuss about the subject matter of the prosecution before
the Learned Trial Court. On 19.11.2021 in the evening at
about 7.00 p.m. the first informant Rana Bahadur Jamatia
along with his wife (victim) had gone to Patichari Rash Mela
under Santirbazar PS by riding his motorbike bearing
registration No.TR-03H-6702 and in the midnight of
20.11.2021 at around 2.30 a.m. they were returning back
to their house by riding that motor bike. On the way while
they were crossing the Tepania Eco Park, Udaipur over
Agartala-Sabroom NH-8 Road suddenly one silver coloured
Maruti Alto 800 vehicle bearing registration No.TR-04A-0370
after coming from back side twice dashed against the
motorbike of first informant resulting which the wife of the
informant (the victim) fell down on the earth from the
motor bike. That time five miscreants alighted from the said
Maruti Alto vehicle armed with weapons to their hands
snatched away the mobile set of the informant. Thereafter
they started assaulting the informant on the back side of
head with an iron rod and as a result he fell down on the
road. Thereafter those miscreants abducted the wife of the
informant with the said Maruti Alto vehicle and fled away
from the scene of occurrence.
04. Another FIR was lodged by the victim prosecutrix
on 24.11.2021 while she was undergoing treatment at
Khumlung Hospital under PS Radhapur, West Tripura
District wherein it was alleged by her that in the midnight of
20.11.2021 at about 2.30 a.m. the prosecutrix (the victim)
and her husband were returning back to their house by
riding their motorbike. On the way while they were crossing
Tepania Eco Park, Udaipur over Agartala-Sabroom NH-8
road suddenly one silver coloured Maruti Alto 800 vehicle
after coming from back side dashed against the motorbike
of the husband of the victim twice resulting which the victim
fell down from the motorbike on the earth. That time four
miscreants alighted from the said Maruti Alto 800 vehicle
and attacked the huband of the prosecutrix with an iron rod
and thereafter they also forcefully abducted from the NH-8
road that vehicle and inside the vehicle she was undressed
by those miscreants for sexual and physical assault and also
taken towards a jungle. There she was raped by those
miscreants. The prosecutrix further alleged that those
miscreants also given bite injuries of teeth on her breast
and inserted finger inside her vagina. Then she lost her
sense and regained her sense in the early morning and then
she called her family members. Subsequently she was
recovered and taken to Women PS, Udaipur as well as to
the Tepania Hospital for treatment. O/C, Radhapur PS, West
Tripura District on receipt of ejahar of the prosecutrix on
24.11.2021 at around 2030 hours forwarded the same to
O/C R.K. Pur PS for taking necessary action. Accordingly
O/C R.K. Pur PS received the ejahar on 25.11.2021 but
forwarded the same to the O/C R.K. Pur Women PS as the
offence related to crime against women. The O/C R.K. Pur
Women PS received the ejahar on 25.11.2021 and
registered a case vide RKP WMN PS case No.2021WRP077
under Section 376B of IPC and the case was endorsed to
the WSI of Police Smti. Sumitra Kapali for investigation. The
first IO during investigation visited the P.O. on 25.11.2021
and prepared hand sketch map with separate index,
recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161
of Cr.P.C., arranged for recording the statement of victim
under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. and on 05.12.2021 handed
over the case to the Inspector of Police namely Smt. Mina
Debbarma of Crime Branch, Tripura Police, Agartala for
investigation.
05. The I.O. of the Crime Branch during investigation
recorded the statement of victim and her husband, had
seized some materials such as black coloured flower printed
tops, grey coloured bra, black coloured jeans, jeans jacket,
prescription of Kherengbari Hospital, Khumlung, prescription
of AGMC & GB Hospital and one ear ring by preparing
seizure memo dated 08.12.2021, prepared hand sketch
maps of two PO‟s with separate indexes, also seized some
articles such as one leather ladies belt, two pieces of broken
bangles, one towel, one iron rod, one iron wheel spanner
and "5" logo of silver colour by seizure memo dated
08.12.2021, collected dry leaf, soil from the PO by seizure
memo dated 12.12.2021. During investigation I.O. also
received the case docket of another case bearing No. R.K.
Pur PS Case No.179/2021 and on the same day she
submitted a prayer before the court of Learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, Udaipur for tagging R.K. Pur
Women PS Case No. 177/2021 and the R.K. Pur PS Case
No.179/2021 and the prayer was allowed by the Learned
C.J.M., Gomati Udaipur. The I.O. also collected medical
report of the victim from different hospitals, wearing
apparels of the accused persons by preparing seizure memo
and also prayed for adding of Sections 3(1)(W)(i) and 3(2)
of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, also
collected potency test report of all accused persons from the
TS District Hospital and thereafter handed over the case
docket to the Deputy SP, Ajoy Kumar Das for completion of
investigation.
06. The last I.O. Ajoy Kumar Das, Deputy SP during
investigation collected report from SFSL, finger print report
from Finger Print cell of SCRB, Agartala and also collected
report from Biology Division, SFSL, Narsingarh. The I.O.
also received the screening report of the offending vehicle
from the office of the JTC, Agartala and seized the vehicle
bearing No.TR-04A-0370 and after completion of the
investigation the I.O. being prima facie satisfied laid
chargesheet against accused Tajul Islam, Saddam Hussein,
Rabban Ali, Dudhu Miah and Samiman Hussein for their
prosecution before the court. Accordingly cognizance of
offence was taken by Learned C.J.M and after that the case
was committed to the court of Learned Sessions Judge,
Gomati District, Udaipur who in turn transferred the case to
the Court of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati District,
Udaipur for disposal according to law.
07. Before the Learned Trial Court charge against the
appellants were framed in the following manner by the Ld.
Special Court on 17.03.2022:
Firstly, that all of you on or about 20.11.2021 night time at
around 3.00 am nearby the Tepania Park over NH 8 under R.K.
Pur PS, Udaipur, Gomati District in furtherance of all of yours
common intention wrongfully restrained the informant namely
Shri Rana Bahadur Jamatia and his wife Smti. X (name
withheld) and that all of you thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 341 read with section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly, that all of you on the same date, time and place in
furtherance of all of yours common intention voluntarily caused
grievous hurt to the informant namely Shri Rana Bahadur
Jamatia by means of an iron road and that all of you thereby
committed on offence punishable under section 326 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance
of this court.
Thirdly, that all of you on the same date, time and place in
furtherance of all of yours common intention abducted a
woman, to wit Smti. X (name withheld) in order that the said
women will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or
knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to
illicit intercourse and that all of you thereby committed on
offence punishable under section 366 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court.
Fourthly, that all of you constituted a group and committed rape
on Smti. X (name withheld on or about 20.11.2021 night time at
around 3.00 am nearby the Tepania Park over NH 8 under R.K,
Pur PS, Udaipur, Gomati District acted in furtherance of common
intention and that all of you thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 3760 of the Indian Penal Code and
within the cognizance of this court.
Fifthly, that all of you on the same date, time and place an
furtherance of all of yours common intention committed dacaity
and that at the time of committing the said dacaity used a
deadly weapon, to wit dao, iron road and sharp cutting knife
and caused grievous hurt to Shri Rana Bahadur Jamatia and
that all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 397 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Cede and
within the cognizance of this court.
Sixthly, that all of you on the same date, time and place
belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of
habitually committing of dacaity and that all of you thereby
committed on offence punishable under section 400 of the
Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court.
Seventhly, that all of you on the same date, time and place
agreed to do an illegal act, to wit abduction of Smti. X (name
withheld), committing gang rape upon her, causing grievous
hurt to Shri Rana Bahadur Jamatia and that off of you thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court.
Eighthly, that all of you on the same date, time and place, not
being a member of a Schedule Tribe intentionally touches a
woman belonging to a Schedule Tribe knowing that she belongs
to a Schedule Tribe, such act of touching is of a sexual nature
and is without the recipients consent and that all of you thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 3(1)(w) (1) of
the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and within
the cognizance of this court.
Ninethly, that all of you on the same date, time and place, not
being a member of a Schedule Tribe acts or gestures of a sexual
nature towards a woman belonging to a Schedule Tribe and that
all of you thereby committed an offence punishable under
section 3(1)(w)(II) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 and within the cognizance of this court.
Lastly, that all of you on the same date, time and place, not
being a member of a Schedule Tribe commits offence specified
in the schedule against a person knowing that such person as a
member of a Schedule Tribe and that all of you thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 3(2)(va) of the
SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and within the
cognizance of this court.
And I do hereby direct that all of you be tried by this Court of
Special Judge on the said charges."
08. To substantiate the charge the prosecution in this
case has adduced as many as 41 numbers of witnesses and
the prosecution also relied upon some documentary
evidences which were marked as exhibits in this case:
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
PW 1 Shri Rana Bahadur Jamatia Other witness
PW 2 The victim (name withheld) Other witness
PW 3 Shri Surja Mohan Jamatia Other witness
PW 4 Smti Barnabala Jamatia Other witness
PW.5 Shri Gaya Sadhan Jamatia Other witness
PW 6 Shri Sahadeb Dutta Other witness
PW.7 Shri Joy Saha Other witness
PW.8 Smti Manibala Das Police witness
PW 9 Shri David Jamatia Other witness
PW.10 Smti Sabi Rani Debbarma Medical witness
PW.11 Dr. Aniruddha Roy Medical witness
PW 12 Shri Pradip Debbarma Police witness
PW 13 Shri Chandan Das Police witness
PW 14 Shri Makhan Debnath Police witness
PW 15 Dr. Mummun Debbarma Medical witness
PW 16 Dr. Pradipta Narayan Chakraborty Medical witness
PW 17 Dr. Madhumita Roy Medical witness
PW 18 Shri Haradhan Bhattacharjee Other witness
PW 19 Shri Supriya Ghosh Police witness
PW 20 Shri Santanu Debbarma Expert witness
PW 21 Smti Purabi Jamatia Other witness
PW 22 Dr. Subhankar Nath Expert witness
PW 23 Dr. Sujit Chakma Medical witness
PW 24 Smti Debjani Majumder Other witness
PW 25 Dr. Sabyasachi Nath Expert witness
PW 26 Dr. Narenjit Das Medical witness
PW 27 Shri Jayanta Das Police witness
PW 28 Dr. Jayashri Debbarma Medical witness
PW 29 Smti Jangal Debi Jamatia Medical witness
PW 30 Dr. Arino Mohan Jamatia Medical witness
PW 31 Smti Archana Reang Other witness
PW 32 Shri Debabrata Biswas Police witness
PW 33 Smti Mina Debbarma Police witness
PW 34 Shri Rajarshi Chakraborty Other witness
PW 35 Shri Ajoy Kumar Das Police witness
PW 36 Dr. Ajitesh Paul Expert witness
PW 37 Dr. Uma Debbarma Medical witness
PW 38 Smti Sumita Sen Other witness
PW 39 Shri Goutam Dey Other witness
PW 40 Smti Alpana Sarkar Police witness
PW 41 Smti Sumitra Kapali Police witness
B. Defence witnesses, if any: Nil
C. Court witnesses, if any: Nil
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution
SL. Exhibit Number Description
No.
1 Exhibit P-1 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in seizure memo dated 20.11 2021
2 Exhibit P-1/1 (PW5) Signature of PW 5 in seizure memo dated 20 11.2021
3 Exhibit P-1/2(PW32) Seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 prepared by PW32
4 Exhibit P-2 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in seizure memo dated20.11.2021
5 Exhibit P-2/1 (PW 9) Signature of PW 9 in seizure memo dated 20.11.2021
6 Exhibit P-2/2 (PW Signature of PW 18 in seizure memo dated 20.11.2021
18)
7 Exhibit P-2/3 (PW Seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 prepared by PW32
32)
8 Exhibit P-3(PW1) Signature of PW 1 in seizure memo dated 20.11.2021
9 Exhibit P-3/1 Signature of PW 12 in seizure memo dated 20.11.2021
(PW12)
10 Exhibit P 3/2 Signature of PW 13 in seizure memo dated 20.11.2021
(PW13)
11 Exhibit P-3/3 Seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 prepared by PW 32
(PW32)
12 Exhibit P-4 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in another seizure memo dated 20
11.2021
13 Exhibit P-4/1 Signature of PW 12 in another seizure memo dated 20.
(PW12) 11.2021
14 Exhibit P-4/2 Signature of PW 13 in another seizure memo dated
(PW13) 20.11.2021
15 Exhibit P-4/3 Seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 prepared by PW 32
(PW32)
16 Exhibit P-5 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in his ejahar to the O/C, R.K.Pur PS
17 Exhibit P-6 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in seizure memo dated 08.12.2021
18 Exhibit P-6/1(PW2) Signature of PW 2 in seizure memo dated 08.12.2021
19 Exhibit P-6/2(PW 4) Signature of PW 4 in seizure memo dated 08.12.2021
20 Exhibit P-6/3 Seizure memo dated 08.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
(PW33)
21 Exhibit P-7 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in seizure memo dated 08.12.2021
22 Exhibit P-7/1 (PW 2) Signature of PW 2 in seizure memo dated 08.12.2021
23 Exhibit P-7/2 (PW 4) Signature of PW 4 in seizure memo dated 08.12.2021
24 Exhibit P-7/3 Seizure memo dated 08.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
(PW33)
25 Exhibit P-8 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in memo of TI parade
26 Exhibit P-8/1 (as a TI parade report prepared by PW 24
whole) (PW 24)
27 Exhibit P-9 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in memo of TI parade dated
01.12.2021
28 Exhibit P-9/1 (PW TI parade report prepared by PW 24
24)
29 Exhibit P-10 (PW 1) Signature of PW 1 in memo of TI parade
30 Exhibit P- TI parade report dated 26.11.2021 prepared by PW 31
10/1(series) (PW
31)
31 Exhibit P- Signature of PW 31 in the TI parade report
10/2(PW31)
32 Exhibit P-11(series) Signatures of PW 2 in two sheets of her complaint
(PW 2)
33 Exhibit P- Note of PW 27 in the written complaint
11/1(PW27)
34 Exhibit P-11/2 (PW Endorsement of PW 32 in the written complaint Filed by
32) the victim
35 Exhibit P-11/3 Receipt and registration note by PW 40 in the written
(PW40) complaint filed by the victim
36 Exhibit P-12(series) Signatures of PW 2 in two sheets of her statement
(PW 2) recorded u/s 164(5) of Cr.P.C.
37 Exhibit P- Signatures of PW 21 in two sheets of her statement
12/1(series) (PW recorded u/s 164(5) of Cr.P.C
21)
38 Exhibit P- Statement of the victim u/s 164(5) of Cr.P.C. in two
12/2(series) (PW sheets recorded by PW 34
34)
39 Exhibit P-12/3 Signatures of PW 34 in two sheets of statement of
(series) (PW 34) victim recorded u/s 164(5) of Cr.P.C.
40 Exhibit P-13 (PW 2) Signature of PW 1 in memo of TI parade
41 Exhibit P-13/1(as a Tl parade report prepared by PW 24
whole (PW 24)
42 Exhibit P-14 (PW 4) Signature of PW 4 In seizure memo dated 24.11.2021
43 Exhibit P- Signature of PW 30 in seizure memo dated24.11.2021
14/1(PW30)
44 Exhibit P-14/1(PW Seizure memo dated 24.11.2021 prepared by PW 27
27)
45 Exhibit P-15 (PW 4) Signature of PW 4 in seizure memo dated 20.12.2021
46 Exhibit P-15/1 Signature of PW 10 in seizure memo dated20.12.2021
(PW10)
47 Exhibit P-15/2 Seizure memo dated 20.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
(PW33)
48 Exhibit P-15/3 Signature of PW 37 in seizure memo dated20.12.2021
(PW37)
49 Exhibit P-16(PW 8) Signature of PW 8 In seizure memo dated12.12.2021
50 Exhibit P- Signature of PW 14 in seizure memo dated12.12.2021
16/1(PW14)
51 Exhibit P- Seizure memo dated 12.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
16/2(PW33)
52 Exhibit P-17(PW 10) Signature of PW 10 in the Blood Sample Authentication
Form of the victim
53 Exhibit P- Blood Sample Authentication Form of the victim issued
17/1(PW37) by PW 37
54 Exhibit P- Signatures of PW 37 in Blood Sample Authentication
17/2(series) (PW Form of the victim
37)
55 Exhibit P-18/PW 11) Medical report of the victim prepared by PW 11 dated
20.11.2021
56 Exhibit P-19(PW 11) Another medical report of the victim prepared by PW 11
dated 20.11.2021
57 Exhibit P-19(series) Signatures of PW 11 in the medical report.
(PW 11)
58 Exhibit P-20(PW 12) Signature of PW 12 in seizure memo
59 Exhibit P-21 (PW Medical report of the victim prepared by PW 15
15)
60 Exhibit P- Signatures of PW 15 in 4 pages of the Medical report of
21/1(series) (PW the victim
15)
61 Exhibit P- Signatures of PW 16 in 4 pages of the Medical
21/2(series) (PW
16)
62 Exhibit P- Signatures of PW 17 in 4 pages of the Medical report of
21/3(series) (PW the victim
17)
63 Exhibit P-22(PW 20) Expert report dated 21.12.2021 prepared by PW 20
64 Exhibit P Signature of PW 20 in his report dated 21.12.2021
22/1(PW20)
65 Exhibit P-23(PW 20) Expert report prepared by PW 20
66 Exhibit P- Signature of PW 20 in his report
23/1(PW20)
67 Exhibit P-24(PW 22) Medical report of the victim prepared by PW 22 dated
20.12.2021
68 Exhibit P- Signatures of PW 22 in the Medical report of the victim
24/1(series) (PW
22)
69 Exhibit P-25(PW23) Expert report prepared by PW 23 dated 24.12.2021
70 Exhibit P- Signatures of PW 23 in the Expert report dated
25/1(series) (PW 24.12.2021
23)
71 Exhibit P-26(PW 23) Another expert report prepared by PW 23 dated
24.12.2021
72 Exhibit P-26/1 Signatures of PW 23 in another expert report dated
(series) (PW 23) 24.12.2021
73 Exhibit P-26(as a Expert report prepared by PW 25 dated 09.12.2021
whole) (PW 25)
74 Exhibit P-27(as a Expert report prepared by PW 25 dated 23.12.2021
whole) (PW 25)
75 Exhibit P-28(as a Expert report prepared by PW 25 dated 24.12.2021
whole) (PW 25)
76 Exhibit P-29(as a Expert report prepared by PW 25 dated 06.01.2022
whole) (PW 25)
77 Exhibit P-30(as a Medical report prepared by PW 26
whole) (PW 26)
78 Exhibits P-31 and Extract copies of GD entries
32(PW 27)
79 Exhibit P- Signature of PW 27 in the GD entry No.22
31/1(PW27)
80 Exhibit P-31/2 Signature of O/C of Radhapur PS in the GD entry No.22
(PW27)
81 Exhibit P-32/1 Signature of PW 27 in the GD entry No.25
(PW27)
82 Exhibit P-32/2 Signature of O/C of Radhapur PS In the GD entry No.25
(PW27)
83 Exhibit P-33 (PW Potency test report of accused Saddam Hussein
28) prepared by PW 28
84 Exhibit P-33/1 Blood sample authentication form in respect of accused
(PW28) Saddam Hussein
85 Exhibit P-34 (PW Potency test report of accused Rabban Ali with blood
28) sample authentication form prepared by PW 28
86 Exhibit P-34/1 Blood sample authentication form in respect of accused
(PW28) Rabban Ali
87 Exhibit P-35 (PW Potency test report of accused Dudhu Miah with blood
28) sample authentication form prepared by PW 28
88 Exhibit P-35/1 blood sample authentication form in respect of accused
(PW28) Dudhu Miah
89 Exhibit P-36 (PW Potency test report of accused Samiman Hussein with
28) blood sample authentication Form prepared by PW 28
90 Exhibit P-36/1 Blood sample authentication form in respect of accused
(PW28) Samiman Hussein
91 Exhibit P-37 (PW Potency test report of accused Tajul Islam with blood
28) sample authentication form prepared by PW 28
92 Exhibit P-37/1 Blood sample authentication form in respect of accused
(PW28) Tajul Islam
93 Exhibit P-38 (PW Signature of PW 28 in the seizure memo dated
28) 28.12.2021
94 Exhibit P-38/1 Signature of PW 29 in the seizure memo dated
(PW29) 28.12.2021
95 Exhibit P-38/2 Seizure memo dated 28.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
(PW33)
96 Exhibit P-39 (PW Medical report of the victim dated 03.12.2021 prepared
30) PW 30
97 Exhibit P-39/1 Signature of PW 30 in the Medical report of the victim
(PW30) dated 03.12.2021
98 Exhibit P-40 (PW Final Medical report of the victim dated 18.12.2021
30) prepared PW 30
99 Exhibit P-40/1 Signature of PW 30 in the Final Medical report of the
(PW30) victim dated 18.12.2021
100 Exhibit P-41(as a Information in writing dated 24. 11.2021 by PW30
whole) (PW 30)
101 Exhibit P-42 (PW Extract copy of GD entry No. 03 and 04 dated
32) 20.11.2021
102 Exhibit P-43 (PW32) Hand sketch map of PO dated 20.11.2021 prepared by
PW 32
103 Exhibit P-44 (PW32) Index of hand sketch map of PO dated 20.11.2021
prepared by PW 32
104 Exhibit P-45 (PW Hand sketch map of PO dated 08.12.2021 prepared by
33) PW 33
105 Exhibit P-46 (PW Index of hand sketch map of PO dated 08.12.2021
33) prepared by PW 33
106 Exhibit P-47 (PW Another hand sketch map of PO dated 08.12.2021
33) prepared by PW 33
107 Exhibit P-48 (PW Index of another hand sketch map of PG dated
33) 08.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
108 Exhibit P-49 (PW33) Seizure memo dated 23.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
109 Exhibit P-50 (PW33) Seizure memo dated 28.12.2021 prepared by PW 33
110 Exhibit P-51 (PW33) Another seizure memo dated 28.12.2021 prepared by
PW 33
111 Exhibit P-51/1 Signature of PW 38 in seizure memo dated28.12.2021
(PW38)
112 Exhibit P-51/2 Signature of PW 39 in seizure memo dated 28.12.2021
(PW39)
113 Exhibit P-52 (PW35) Signature of PW 35 in the forwarding note of exhibits to
the SFSL
114 Exhibit P-52 (PW Expert report prepared by PW 36
36)
115 Exhibit P-52/1 Signature of PW 36 in the expert report
(PW36)
116 Exhibit, P-53 (PW Certificate issued by PW 35
35)
117 Exhibit P-54 (PW Signature of PW 35 in another forwarding note of
35) exhibits to the SFSL
118 Exhibit P-55 (PW35) Another certificate issued by PW 35
119 Exhibit P-56 (series) Check list in 2 sheets (PW 35)
120 Exhibit P-57 (series) Forwarding note dated 23.12.2021 by PW 35
(PW 35)
121 Exhibit P-58 (series) Forwarding note dated 22.12.2021 by PW 35
(PW 35)
122 Exhibit P-59 (PW Requisition dated 14.12.2021 sent by PW 35 for certified
35) copy of CDR and CAF to the Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel
Limited.
123 Exhibit P-60 (as a Printed FIR form in 3 sheets filled up by PW 40
whole) (PW 40)
124 Exhibit P-61 (PW Hand sketch map of PO dated 29.11.2021 prepared by
41) PW 41
125 Exhibit P-62 (PW Index of hand sketch map of PO dated 29.11.2021
41) prepared by PW 41
B. Defence : Nil
C. Court Exhibits: Nil
D. Material Objects:
Sl. Exhibit No. Description
No.
1 Exbt. MO 1 Black coloured helmet
2 Exbt. MO 2 Pink coloured ladies woolen cap
3 Exbt. MO Black coloured money bag, election ID card, PAN card,
3(series) Debit card
4 Exbt.MO 4 Mobile phone of PW 1
5 Exbt.MO 5 Chappal and bangles of the victim
(series)
6 Exbt.MO 6 Golden coloured ear ring
7 Exbt.MO 7 Ladies belt and broken bangles
(series)
8 Exbt.MO 8 Wearing apparel of the victim
(series)
9 Exbt.MO 9 'Towel, "S" logo of car and iron wheel spanner
(series)
09. To decide the case Learned Trial court below
determined the following points:
POINT'S FOR DETERMINATION
(i) Whether the accused persons namely Tajul Islam, Saddam
Hussein, Rabban Ali, Dudhu Miah and Samiman Hussein alias
Nayan on or about 20.11.2021 night time at around 3:00 AM
nearby the Tepania Park over NH 8 road under R.K. Pur PS,
Udaipur, Gomati District in furtherance of their common
intention wrongfully restrained the informant namely Shri Rana
Bahadur Jamatia and his wife Smti X (name withheld) and
thereby all of them committed an offence punishable under
section 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
within the cognizance of this court:
(ii) Whether all the accused persons as named above on the
same date, time and place in furtherance of their common
intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the informant
namely Shri Rana Bahadur Jamatia by means of an iron rod and
thereby all of them committed an offence punishable under
section 326 read with section 34 of the indian Penal Code and
within the cognizance of this court:
(iii) Whether all the accused persons as named above on the
same date, time and place in furtherance of their common
intention abducted a woman, to wit Smti X (name withheld) In
order that the said woman will be forced or seduced to Illicit
intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or
seduced to illicit intercourse and thereby all of them committed
an offence punishable under section 366 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court:
(iv) Whether all the accused persons as named above
constituted a group and committed rape on Smti X (name
withheld) on or about 20.11.2021 night time at around 3:00 AM
nearby the Tepania Park over NH 8 road under R.K. Pur PS,
Udaipur, Gomati District acted in furtherance of common
intention and committed an offence punishable under section
3760 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this
court:
(v) Whether all the accused persons as named above on the
same date, time and place in furtherance of their common
intention committed decoity and that at the time of committing
the sold decoity used a deadly weapon, to wit deo, iron rood
and sharp cutting knife and caused grievous hurt to Shri Rana
Bahadur Jamatia and thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 397 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and within the cognizance of this court
(vi) Whether all the accused persons as named above on the
same date, time and place belonging to a gang of persons
associated for the purpose of habitually committing of dacoity
and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 400
of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court
(vii) Whether all the accused persons as named above on the
same date, time and place agreed to do an illegal act, to wit
abduction of Smti X (name withheld), committing gang rape
upon her, causing grievous hurt to Shri Rana Bahadur Jamatia
and thereby all of them committed an offence punishable under
section 1208 of the Indian Penal Code and within the
cognizance of this court;
(viii) Whether all the accused persons as named above on the
same date, time and place, not being a member of a Schedule
Tribe intentionally touches a woman belonging to a Schedule
Tribe knowing that she belongs to o Schedule Tribe, such act of
touching is of a sexual nature and is without the recipients
consent and thereby all of them committed an offence
punishable under section 3(1) (w)(1) of the SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and within the cognizance
of this court.
(ix) Whether all the accused persons as named above on the
same date, time and place, not being a member of a Schedule
Tribe acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman
belonging to a Schedule Tribe and thereby committed on
offence punishable under section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and within the cognizance
of this court:
(x) Whether all the accused persons as named above all of you
on the same date, time and place, not being a member of a
Schedule Tribe commits offence specified in the schedule
against a person knowing that such person as a member of a
Schedule Tribe and thereby committed an offence punishable
under section 8(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and within the cognizance of this court.
10. To substantiate the aforesaid points as already
stated prosecution has adduced in total 41 numbers of
witnesses. Now let us revisit the evidence on record of the
prosecution before conclusion of the appeal. It is to be
noted here that in this case excepting PWs 1 i.e. informant
and PW-2, the victim, there is/are no other eye witnesses of
the alleged occurrence of offence. PW-1, Rana Bahadur
Jamatia is the husband of the prosecutrix/victim as well as
the informant also. He deposed that on 19.11.2021 they
went out from their house to attend Rash Mela at Patichari
under Garjee outpost at around 7.00 p.m. and they reached
at Mela at about 10.00 p.m. and after attending mela he
along with his wife at about 2.30 a.m. were returning back
to their residence at Jalema by riding a motor bike. On the
way after crossing the Tepania Park suddenly one silver
coloured Maruti Alto car dashed against his motor bike.
Initially he thought that it was a mere accident, but again
the said car dashed against his motor bike for which his wife
fell down on the ground from the bike. Then he stopped the
motor bike to see the injuries of his wife. When the said car
turned towards them immediately he lifted his wife on his
bike to run from the place. But one of the accused persons
forcefully dragged the hand of his wife and pulled her down.
Then he also got off from his motor bike and saw three
persons inside the car. Then and there he was hit on his
head by an iron rod and fell down on the road. However, he
managed to rise again and proceeded towards their car and
found one person was holding his wife and pushing her
inside the car with the aid of another person. Two persons
came forward to attack him with a knife and iron rod in their
hands, inside the car there was one man sitting at the
wheel. He again fell down on the road and go backward to
save himself from assault. That time he noticed those
persons took away his wife after dragging her inside the car.
He further identified the accused persons at serial No.2 and
3 standing, that they were holding iron rod and knife in
their hands on the alleged night of incident. He also
indicated his finger to the accused at serial No.1 stating that
the accused was dragging and holding his wife. He indicated
his finger to the accused persons in the dock at serial No.4
and 5 stating that they were aiding accused at serial No.1
for taking his wife inside the car after coming out from the
car and finally told there were in total five accused persons.
He further stated that those miscreants ran the car very
hurriedly towards Udaipur and he tried to follow them by his
bike, but failed on turning and finding no other alternative
way he had gone to Tepania District Hospital and there he
found one official to whom he narrated the incident. Then
said official informed the matter to the PS and in the
meanwhile Police came to the hospital. The police gone for
searching his wife, but failed to recover her and again police
returned to hospital with empty hands and again proceeded
to search his wife. Then he was instructed by the hospital
official to go to the PS. After visiting PS he was taken to the
PO by the police. There police found his mobile, chappal and
bangle of his wife which was seized by police by preparing
seizure list wherein he put his signature. Witness identified
his signature on the seizure list marked Exbt.P-1. He was
again taken to the PS and waited therein till 8.00 a.m. in
the morning when he could know about the fact of recovery
of his wife. He also put his another signature on the seizure
memo after the seizure of black coloured money bag,
election ID card, PAN card, Debit card of himself etc.
Witness identified his signature marked as Exbt.P-2. He also
put his another signature on the seizure memo at around
1230 hours after the seizure of one Maruti Alto car, black
coloured helmet, woolen cap and three mobile phones. He
identified his signature which is marked as Exbt.P-3. He
identified black coloured helmet and pink coloured ladies
woolen cap marked Exbt.MO P-1 and MO P-2. He further
identified black coloured money bag, election ID card, PAN
card, Debit card. On being identified those were marked as
Exbt.MO P-3 (series). He further identified his mobile,
chappal and bangles of his wife which were marked Exbt.
MO P-4 and Exbt.MO P-5 (series). He put his signature on
another seizure memo at around 1245 hours after the
seizure of golden coloured ear rings and two mobile sets.
Witness identified his signature marked as Exbt.P-4 and
identified the seized golden coloured ear ring marked as
Exbt.MO P-6. After that he laid the FIR to the O/C R.K. Pur
PS and identified the same marked Exbt.P-5.
He further deposed that his ejahar was prepared
by one Rajat Jamatia as per his narration. He met his wife
at around 1.00/2.00 p.m. There she was unable to speak
due to her injuries. Then his parents came to the PS and at
around 3.00 pm they left the PS for their house. He found
several injuries on different parts of the body of his wife as
well as her wearing apparels also torned in several place
very badly. On the next day morning his wife was taken to
Tepania District Hospital for treatment. Due to crowd they
took her to Khumulung Hospital, Jirania where she received
treatment for around 3/4 days and later she was referred to
GB Hospital, Agartala. At Khumulung Hospital, Jirania his
wife narrated the entire incident to him and further stated
that she was brutally assaulted by the accused persons and
received knife injury on her buttock. She also stated that
the accused persons gave her bite injuries on her chest and
cheek. He further stated that accused persons threatened
her to open her private parts else they will give knife injury
there and the accused persons also inserted their fingers
inside of her private parts and they committed the indecent
acts as per their volition without any obstruction and
thereby his wife had lost her sense. When she regained her
sense she found herself alone without any dresses on her
body. Then she hide herself inside the jungle, but accused
persons were searching for her and telling each other that if
she could not be found it would be harmful for them. During
this period his wife very scared to come out and finally after
rising the sun she came out from the jungle towards a
village at Barabhaiya. There she found one villager to whom
she asked for help who appointed one boy to assist his wife
for reaching nearby Bagma Choumuhani. Then his wife
called him to his mobile phone, but it was received by police
and accordingly she was taken to PS by police. His wife did
not admit in GB Hospital though they visited the same in the
morning at around 10.00 a.m. and in the evening they get
back towards their house. On 08.12.2021, police had seized
one ladies belt, broken bangles by preparing seizure memo
wherein he put his signature. He identified his signature
marked as Exbt.P-6. He identified the ladies belt, broken
bangles which were marked Exbt.MO P-7 (series). He also
put his signature in the seizure memo after the seizure of
wearing apparels of his wife. He identified his signature
marked as Exbt.P-7. He also identified the wearing apparel
of his wife which were marked as Exbt. MO P-8 (series). He
also put his signature as an identifying witness in the TI
parade and identified his signature marked Exbt.P-8. On
01.12.2021 he also put his another signature in the TI
parade as an identifying witness and identified his signature
marked Exbt.P-9. On 10.12.2021 he also put his another
signature on the TI parade as an identifying witness and
identified the same marked Exbt.P-10 and identified all the
accused persons present in the court in the dock.
During cross-examination by the appellants the
informant husband was confronted with the statement that
he stated to I.O. that he stopped the motor bike to see the
injuries of his wife. Then said car rushed towards them,
immediately he lifted his wife on his bike to run from the
place, but one of the accused person forcefully dragged the
hand of his wife and pulled her down. On drawing attention
such statement was not specifically found to the statement
of witness recorded by I.O. He was further confronted with
the statement that after visiting the PS he was taken to the
P.O. by the police. There police found his mobile, chappal
and bangle of his wife at the P.O. which was seized by
police with seizure memo. On drawing attention such
statement of the witness was not found to the statement
recorded by I.O. He also stated that the ejahar was filed in
the PS before meeting with his wife. He was further
confronted with the statement that he stated to I.O. on the
next morning his wife was taken to Tepania District Hospital
for treatment and due to crowd they were taken towards
Khumulung Hospital, Jirania and there she received
treatment for 3/4 days. Later on, she was referred to GB
Hospital, Agartala. On drawing attention of the statement of
the witness recorded by I.O. such statement was not
specifically found in the statement of witness recorded by
I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He was further confronted
with the statement that he stated to I.O. that his wife
narrated to him that she received knife injury on her
buttock. On drawing attention such statement was not
found in the statement recorded by I.O. He was further
confronted with the statement that he stated to I.O. that
when his wife regained her sense then she found herself
alone without any dresses on her body. But on drawing
attention such statement was not found in the statement of
witness recorded by I.O. Again he was confronted with the
statement that he stated to I.O. that his wife did not
admitted G.B. Hospital though they visited the same in the
morning at around 10.00 a.m. and in the evening they
returned back to their house. But on drawing attention of
the statement of witness such statement was not found.
Being asked by the court the appellant accused persons
disclosed their identity as Tajul Islam, Saddam Hossen,
Rabban Ali, Samiman Hossen and Dudhu Miah. The witness
further identified the seized Maruti Alto vehicle which was
seized by police with seizure memo on 20.11.2021 and the
same was marked as Exbt.MO P-9.
11. PW-2 is the victim. She deposed on oath that on
19.11.2021 at around 7.00 pm she along with her husband
went to Rash Mela at Patichari and at about 2.30 a.m. while
they were returning back towards their house situated at
Jalema from Rash Mela by motor bike, that time on the way
after crossing the Tepania Park, Udaipur over on Agartala-
Sabroom NH one Alto silver coloured car dashed against the
motor bike of her husband. Thereafter said car again dashed
against the motor bike for which she fell down on the
ground and after that the vehicle stopped. That time three
persons came out from the car and out of them two persons
started assaulting her husband with an iron rod and one of
them hold her forcefully. That time two more persons were
inside the car and came out to help the man who was
holding her to take her inside forcefully. Inside the car she
was brutally assaulted by them and kept at the foot space
instead of seat. She was taken towards Tepania Gas
godown and further taken towards a jungle. There she was
taken out from the car by the accused persons and they
were assaulting her incessantly. After taking her inside the
jungle they forcefully undressed her and pulled down her
panty and all of them one by one committed rape upon her.
They also gave bite injuries on her breast and cheek. They
also inserted their fingers on her private part. She lost her
sense and after regaining her sense she found herself alone
inside the jungle without any cloth on her body. Then she
found her clothes nearby and dressed herself. Then all of
them came in search of her but she concealed herself inside
the jungle. Second time they again came in search of her
and started calling her "'kaki' 'kaki', come out, we will drop
you nearby the road.'' They also whispered them if she was
spared then she may cause harm to them. Somehow she
managed to conceal herself inside the deep jungle after
pressing her mouth so that sound may not come out. After
rising of the Sun she heard sound of motorcycle and hearing
that she tried to come out but again hide herself. After that
she came out from the jungle again and in the sunlight she
found one road and there she found an old man with a
bicycle to whom she narrated entire incident and requested
him to help her. He accordingly helped her and took her
towards Barabhaiya school. There they found one boy was
coming with a scooty and the old man requested the boy to
help her to reach at Bagma bazaar. There she made a call
to the mobile of her husband with the mobile of that boy.
His mobile phone was responded by one Darogababu. That
time she was asked by Darogababu about her location to
which she informed that she was located at Barabhaiya.
Then she was dropped at the Bagma main rod by that boy
with his scooty. Meanwhile she found one of her villager
namely David Jamatia coming with a scooty who lifted her
from there and on the way she found police vehicle and she
was taken inside of that vehicle for Women PS. At around
1.00/1.30 pm she met with her husband there. Though
police asked her about the incident but due to fear and
shame she failed to say elaborately the entire episode to the
police. Then she was taken to Udaipur Hospital for her
treatment. At around 2.00/3.00 pm she along with her
husband and other family members proceeded for their
house. After reaching the house at the time of bath her
husband and her mother found injury marks on her body to
which they asked her about those injuries. But she could not
tell them due to fear and shame. On 21.11.2021 she was
taken by her family members for treatment to the District
Hospital, Tepania, but due to huge crowd they failed to visit
any doctor and then came back to house. On 22.11.2021
her husband took her to Khumulung Hospital, Jirania for
treatment and till 25.11.2021 she received treatment
therein. During that time she narrated her incidents to her
husband, other family members and Doctor of such hospital.
She was advised by the attending Doctor to lodge complaint
and accordingly police came at Hospital. There she lodged
her complaint as written by her husband with the help of
police as per her version wherein she put her signature.
Witness identified her signatures in two sheets which are
marked as Exbt.P-11(series). On 25.11.2021 she was
referred to GB Hospital, Agartala and accordingly she visited
the same wherein she was advised for admission. There CT
scan was done and some medicines were given to her. Due
to fear she did not take admission at GB Hospital and
returned back to house at night. After 3/4 days she was
produced before the court for recording her statement.
There she narrated the incidents to the court and it was
recorded as per her version wherein she put her signature.
She identified her signatures on the statement recorded by
the court which were marked as Exbt.P-12 (series). After
that one TI Parade has been conducted wherein she put her
signature as an identifying witness. The witness identified
her signature which was marked as Exbt.P-13 and also put
her signature on the seizure memo after the seizure of
wearing apparels. Witness identified her signature which
was marked as Exbt.P-7/1. She also put another signature
in another seizure memo after the seizure of ladies belt,
broken bangles, towel, iron rod etc. She identified her
signature marked Exbt.P-6/1 and confirmed the seized
ladies belt which already been marked as Exbt.MO P-7
(series). She also identified towel, "S" logo of car and iron
wheel spanner which were marked as Exbt.MO P-9(series).
She identified all the accused persons in the court dock. She
identified the accused as serial No.1 by pointing finger and
stated that said accused gave bite injuries on her breast and
on cheek. She further identified by indicating her finger to
another accused at serial No.3 stating that said accused has
given rod blow to her husband accused standing at serial
No.2 tried to give dao blow to her husband and rest others
standing at serial No.4 and 5 forcefully dragged her inside
the car with accused standing at serial No.1.
During cross-examination she stated that she
has seen the accused persons in the court first time after
the incident. She was confronted with the statement that at
that time two persons were inside the car and helped the
man who was holding her to take her inside of that car
forcefully. On drawing attention such statement was not
found in her statement recorded by I.O. under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. and also under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C.
specifically. She further stated that she stated to I.O. that
she was taken towards Tepania Gas godown but on drawing
attention such statement was not found to her statement
recorded by I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also by
court. She was confronted with the statement that she
stated to Magistrate that the accused person inserted their
fingers in her private part. But on drawing attention to the
statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. the
witness stated that such statement was not there although
she stated only 'he inserted finger'. She was further
confronted with the statement that he stated to I.O. that
after meeting with one villager namely David Jamatia he
lifted her in his scooty from there. On drawing attention
such statement was not found to the statement of witness
recorded by I.O. She was again confronted with the
statement that she stated to I.O. that after reaching the
house at the time of bath her husband and her mother
found injury marks on her body to which they asked her
about the injuries. But she could not tell them due to fear
and shame. But on drawing attention same part of
statement was not found in the statement of witness
recorded by I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. She also
stated that her ejahar does not speak who had written the
same and it does not contain about the place of his lodging
to the police and it does not contain that it was written as
per her version. Being asked by the court the accused
persons standing on the dock disclosed their name one by
one. Nothing more came out relevant from her cross-
examination.
12. PW-3, Surya Mohan Jamatia is the father of the
informant, Rana Bahadur Jamatia i.e. PW-1 has stated that
on 19.11.2021 at around 7/7.30 p.m. in the evening his son
and his wife (the victim) had gone to attend one Rash Mela
at Patichari, but they did not return home at night. On the
next morning PW-3 along with one villagers namely David
Jamatia were on morning walk that time one police
Constable namely Rajkumar Debbarma called him to his
mobile and asked him about his son and his wife and told
him to visit to R.K. Pur PS as early as possible and
accordingly he informed the matter to his wife and along
with David Jamatia and another villager „Jamai‟ proceeded
towards R.K. Pur PS at 6.00 a.m. in the morning. When he
reached there he saw his son and he has narrated the whole
incident to his father. He lodged one ejahar at 9.00 a.m. in
the morning. At around 10.00 a.m. one phone call has came
to the informant‟s mobile and the police has received that
call of his daughter-in-law who stated that she was at
Barabhaiya at Bagma. Subsequntly his daughter-in-law has
been recovered and taken to R.K. Pur Women PS and at
around 1.30 p.m. he went to R.K. Pur Women PS where he
found his daughter-in-law was crying continuously. His
daughter-in-law was also not in a condition to say anything
and further she was taken to hospital for treatment. He
further stated that at around 5.00 p.m. in the evening she
was taken to her house and while her mother-in-law gave
her bath she found some bite injury marks on different
parts of her body. Subsequently on the next morning she
was taken to Tepania district Hospital for treatment but she
refused to admit in that hospital due to huge crowd. On the
next morning she was taken to Khumulung Hospital, Jirania
where she admitted for 4/5 days. In that particular hospital
the victim informed the whole incident. The victim also
stated that after a prolong torture upon her she lost her
sense and when she regained her sense she saw herself in a
deep jungle. According to the victim she was brutally
assaulted by all the miscreants. After that, the accused
persons returned to the PO and asks for coming out after
addressing to her as "kaki kaki come out, we will drop you
at your desired place", but she refused and hide herself
inside the deep jungle. The victim has further stated after
getting dawn she came out from the jungle and found one
old man proceeding with a bicycle and requested him to
found a road for her so that she can proceed. Meanwhile,
one school boy came out there with a scooty and his
daughter-in-law requested him to call in a mobile number
and accordingly call was made which was received by the
police. The victim girl refused to narrate the incident earlier
as she was just a newly married woman of about 9-10 days.
During cross-examination he stated that after
getting call from police Constable along with David Jamatia
he proceeded towards R.K. Pur PS via Bagma from their
village Jalema. He further stated to the I.O. that after
reaching to the house his wife gave bath to his daughter-in-
law when she saw several injury marks on different parts of
her body. Nothing more came out relevant except denial.
13. PW-4, Barnabala Jamatia is the mother-in-law of
the victim. She deposed that on 19.11.2021 at around
7/7.30 p.m. the informant i.e. her son and the victim had
gone to attend one Rash Mela at Patichari, but they did not
come back at night. On the next day in the morning her
husband i.e. PW-3 after coming from morning walk
informed her that an incident took place with her son and
for that he has to go to R.K. Pur PS. Accordingly he along
with David Jamatia and another villager known as „Jamai‟
rushed to R.K. Pur PS at around 9/9.30 a.m. in the morning
where he found his son. He asked him what happened to
which he informed him i.e his father that on the previous
day night while he along with his wife were returning from
Rash Mela by his motorbike and when they crossed the
Tepania Park at around 2/2.30 a.m. their motorcycle has
been dashed twice from the backside by an Alto car. He also
stated that at the first time nothing was happened but at
the second time his daughter-in-law i.e. the victim dashed
by that car and fell down from the motor cycle. Then three
persons came out from that Alto car and gave a rod blow
upon her son. His son informed him that the other two
persons came out from that car and brutally assaulted his
son and his daughter-in-law and they had taken away his
daughter-in-law forcefully inside the Alto car for Udaipur.
Subsequently at around 1/1.30 p.m. his daughter-in-law
was brought to the R.K. Pur Women PS and met with her
and asked her about the incident to which she could only
say that she was brutally assaulted by the accused persons
who has taken her into the Alto car. After that his daughter-
in-law was taken to Udaipur Hospital by the police and at
around 5/5.30 p.m. they left the PS for their house. After
reaching to the house when she was taking bath she (PW-4)
saw severe bite injuries on her breast, private parts, face
and on backside of her body. She also found swollen injuries
on different parts of her body including on the eyes. She
also stated that after completion of bath she was not able to
dress her as she was crying due to pain and PW-4 wrapped
her on the shoulder with a soft cloth and taken her to the
bed for sleeping. Her daughter-in-law was not able to sleep
whole night due to pain and she was continuously
screaming. After that, the family members on the next day
morning took her to the Tepania District Hospital for
treatment but failed to admit therein due to crowd. On
22.11.2021 they had taken her to Khumulung Hospital,
Jirania for further treatment wherein she was admitted for
few days. On 23.11.2021 her daughter-in-law stated her
(PW-4) in presence of her husband and her son that on the
alleged night of incident after taking her inside the deep
jungle all the five persons brutally assaulted her with fist
and blows as well as kick blows and then all of them
committed rape upon her. Due to the incident her daughter-
in-law lost her sense and those accused persons left her in
anticipation of her death. She also stated that the victim
told them that after the commission of rape the accused
persons also inserted the blunt back side of a knife inside
her private parts. Meanwhile she regained her sense and
she had gone further inside a deep jungle for hiding herself
where she could heard the voice of accused persons nearby
of her calling her "kaki kaki, come out, we will drop you at
the main road". After the end of the night her daughter-in-
law came out from the jungle and recovered a route where
she found one old man coming with a bicycle. She
requested him to help her for reaching to main road and
that time one school boy was also coming with a scooty to
whom the old man requested to drop her daughter-in-law at
the main road. Accordingly she was dropped at the main
road by that school boy with a scooty and after reaching at
the main road she made a call with the mobile of said school
boy to the mobile of her husband which was received by the
police. As a result of which she was recovered by the police
and taken to R.K Pur Women PS. PW-4 stated that the
daughter-in-law i.e. the victim could not say anything
earlier about the incident as she was in fear and in
hesitation being just newly married of just 9/10 days from
the alleged incident. On 24.11.2021 she put her signature
on the seizure memo after the seizure of vaginal swab of
her daughter-in-law marked as Exbt.P/14 and also put her
signature on the seizure of wearing apparels seized by the
police which was marked as P-7/2. She also put her
signature in the seizure memo after the seizure of some
articles along with iron rod, one iron wheel and one "S" logo
of vehicle marked as Exbt.P-6/2. Witness confirmed the
seized articles which were marked as Exbt.M.O.P-8(series)
and Exbt.M.O.P/7 (series) respectively. She also put her
signature after the seizure of blood samples marked as
Exbt.P-15.
During cross-examination she deposed that she
has met with the I.O. along with her daughter-in-law at
around 1/1.30 p.m. She also stated to I.O. that after
completion of bath she was not able to dress her as she was
crying due to huge pain and as such she wrapped her on the
shoulder with a soft cloth and took her to the bed for
sleeping. She also stated that her daughter-in-law was not
able to sleep whole night due to pain. She also deposed to
I.O. that on 21.11.2021 she was taken to the Tepania
District Hospital for treatment but she could not admit
therein as she became nervous after hearing Bengali
conversation. She deposed that on 23.11.2021 her
daughter-in-law in presence of her husband and her son
told that on the alleged night of incident after taking her
inside the deep jungle all the five persons brutally assaulted
her with fist and blows as well as kick blow and then all of
them committed rape upon her. Attention of the witness
was drawn to her previous statement recorded by the I.O.
to which witness stated that on which date, to whom and in
whose presence her daughter-in-law stated about her
incident are not there. She was further confronted with the
statement that she stated to the I.O. that the accused
persons inserted blunt back side of a knife inside the private
parts of her daughter-in-law. Attention of the witness was
drawn to her previous statement recorded by the I.O. to
which witness stated that such statement was not there.
Nothing more came out relevant.
14. PW-5, Shri Gaya Sadhan Jamatia is the elder
brother of the victim. He deposed that on 19.11.2021
evening time at around 7.00/7.30 p.m. he met his younger
sister and her husband at Khamar Para, Bagma while they
were proceeding towards Rash Mela at Patichari by a motor
cycle. On the next day i.e. 20.11.2021 at around 5.30 a.m.
the mother of Rana Bahadur (the informant) informed him
that one call has come from the PS in the mobile of the
father of Rana Bahadur. Then he along with the father of
Rana Bahadur and another David Jamatia rushed towards
the R.K. Pur PS, but on arrival he found only Rana Bahadur
there and could not find his younger sister. On being asked
Rana Bahadur told that on the previous night while he (the
informant) along with his wife (the victim) were returning
back from Rash Mela on the way after crossing the Tepania
Park at around 2.00/2.30 a.m. their motor cycle has been
dashed twice from the back side by a Alto silver colour car.
After dashing second time his younger sister fell down from
the motor cycle and then three accused persons came out
from that car and out of them one accused person chased
his younger sister and other two accused persons assaulted
Rana Bahadur with an iron rod. Rana Bahadur futher
informed them that then two other accused persons came
out from that car and all of them forcefully taken away his
younger sister inside of that Alto car towards Udaipur. Then
Rana Bahadur went to the District Hospital, Tepania and
there he narrated the incident to one police constable who
asked him to visit the R.K. Pur PS. Then he visited the R.K.
Pur PS. In the PS at around 9.00/10.00 a.m. one call had
come to the SIM of Rana Bahadur Jamatia installed in the
mobile of one police which was called by his younger sister
who stated that she was at Bagma crossing. Then he
accompanied with the police proceeded towards Bagma
crossing and recovered his younger sister and brought to
the R.K. Pur Women PS. Subsequently she was taken to
Udaipur Sub-Divisional Hospital for treatment. Later on, at
around 5.00 p.m. in the evening they left the PS for their
house at Jalema. After reaching to the house when mother
of Rana Bahadur gave bath to his younger sister that time
severe injury marks were found all over the body of his
younger sister which he came to know from the mother of
Rana Bahadur. On the next morning they had taken her
sister to the Tepania District Hospital for treatment, but
failed to get her admitted therein as she became nervous
after seeing unknown faces there. On the next morning i.e.
on 22.11.2021 his younger sister was taken to Khumulung
Hospital, Jirania for further treatment. He stated that he
had gone to Khumulung Hospital on the next day i.e. on
23.11.2021. There his younger sister stated to them in front
of doctor and police about her incident that on the alleged
night of incident after taking her inside the deep jungle all
the five persons brutally assaulted her with fist and blows as
well as kick blow and then all of them committed rape upon
her one by one. On being asked, his younger sister told that
due to newly married as well as out of shame she could not
state earlier about her incident to them just after the
incident. He returned back from the Khumulung Hospital in
the evening. He put his signature on the seizure memo after
the seizure of one VIVO mobile phone, broken ladies shoes
and broken pieces of white „shakha‟. He identified his
signature marked as Exbt.P-1/1. Witness also confirmed the
seized articles which already been marked as Exbt. MO. P-4
and Exbt. MO. P-5 (series).
During cross-examination he stated that he
stated to the IO that Rana Bahadur told them about the
incident. On drawing attention such statement was not
found to the statement of witness recorded by I.O. He also
stated to the IO that after reaching to the house when
mother of Rana Bahadur gave bath to his younger sister
that time severe injury marks were found all over the body
of her which he came to know from the mother of Rana
Bahadur. On drawing attention such statement was not
found to the statement of witness recorded by I.O. He has
further stated in the cross-examination that he stated to the
IO that on 23.11.2021 he had gone to Khumulung Hospital,
Jirania. He also stated to the IO that at Khumulung Hospital,
Jirania in presence of them, doctor and police, she (victim)
told her incident. On drawing attention such statement was
not specifically found to the statement of witness recorded
by I.O. Nothing more came out relevant.
15. PW-6, Sahadeb Dutta posted as Forest Guard of
Tepania Forest Range. He deposed that on 20.11.2021
morning time at around 7.00/7.15 a.m. while he was
proceeding towards his house after completing his night
duty by using the road below of Tepania District Hospital on
the way near Tepania Smriti Ban (jungle) Forest Range he
could hear the voice of one lady calling him from back side
after saying "Uncle, uncle, save me." Then he stopped his
bicycle and turned towards the lady. After reaching nearby
to her he saw several bleeding injury marks on her whole
face and asked her about those marks. Then she told him
that on the previous night while she was returning with her
husband from Rash Mela on the way nearby Tepania Park
they were detained by 4/5 persons and she was taken by
those persons after being beaten by them towards the
jungle. She also told him that her husband also beaten by
those persons. She further told him that inside the jungle
she was sexually assaulted by those 4/5 persons and after
getting dawn she came out from jungle. He stated that the
lady also requested him to drop her to her house, but in the
meantime, one of his village nephew namely Joy Saha
arrived there with his scooty. Then he requested his said
nephew to drop the lady at the Bagma Hospital
Choumohani. Then one phone call also been made by said
lady with the mobile of Joy Saha wherein she stated that by
10 minutes she might be on the Highway road. Said Joy
Saha took the lady towards the Bagma Hospital
Choumuhani.
During cross-examination he stated that he told
to the I.O that the lady told him that inside the jungle she
was sexually assaulted by 4/5 persons. On drawing
attention such statement was not specifically found to the
previous statement. Nothing more came out relevant.
16. PW-7, Joy Saha was a student of Class XII of
Ramesh School deposed that on 20.11.2021 morning time
at around 8.10 a.m. while he was returning towards his
house from tuition by using the road of below Tepania
District Hospital, on the way he found one of his village
uncles namely Sahadeb Dutta with one lady nearby the
down road just ahead of Barabhaiya School. There he also
saw the lady with severe swollen injuries all over on her
face who also requested him to make a mobile call to her
family. There on being asked to the lady he came to know
that on the previous night while they were returning
towards house from Rash Mela on the way they were
detained by 4/5 persons nearby Tepania Park and she was
taken by those persons after being assaulted by them. She
further stated that her husband also been assaulted by
those persons. Then she called to her family with his
mobile. He also talked to one person from other side and he
requested him to come at Barabhaiya School to which that
person replied that he do not know the address of said
school. Then it was agreed that the lady will be dropped at
Bagma Hospital Choumuhani. Then he took the lady towards
Bagma Hospital Choumuhani with his scooty, but on the
way she was requesting him to drive the scooty slowly as
she was having pain all over on her body. Then he dropped
her at Bagma Hospital Choumuhani. There the lady was
taken by her known persons. During cross-examination
nothing came out except denial.
17. PW-8, Mani Bala Das was posted as Constable in
the R.K. Pur Women PS on 12.12.2021 and on that date she
was performing duty with the Inspector of Police namely
Mina Debbarma along with Forensic Team. On that date said
Inspector of police had seized dry leaves, soil from the PO
by preparing seizure memo wherein she put his signature.
Witness identified her signature marked as Exbt.P-16.
During cross-examination nothing came out except denial.
18. PW-9, David Jamatia deposed that on
20.11.2021 police has seized money bag, PAN card, Debit
card, voter I-card of Rana Bahadur by preparing seizure
memo at Barabhaiya, Bagma wherein he put his signature
and identified his signature marked as Exbt.P-2/1. In the
cross-examination he stated that he could not say the case
number as well as the GD entry number. He also stated that
he put his signature in the PS on 20.11.2021 at around
6.00/6.30 a.m. in the morning.
19. PW-10, Sabi Rani Debbarma was posted as the
Staff Nurse at TSSD Hospital Udaipur on 20.12.2021 and on
that date the Inspector Police namely Smti. Mina Debbarma
has seized blood sample of victim in gauze cloth by seizure
memo wherein she put her signature. Witness identified her
signature marked as Exbt.P-15/1. She also put her another
signature in the blood sample authentication form of the
victim. Witness identified her signature marked as Exbt.P-
17. Nothing came out relevant during the cross-
examination.
20. PW-11, Dr. Aniruddha Roy was posted in the
TSSD Hospital, Udaipur, Gomati District as the Medical
Officer on 20.11.2021 and on that date he received a prayer
from the O/C, R.K. Pur Women PS, Udaipur for arranging
formal medical check-up of the victim in connection with
R.K. Pur Women PS GDE No.09 dated 20.11.2021. At
around 12.17 pm he examined the victim medically with
complaint of alleged history of physical assault yesterday
night blunt trauma over right hand, face, back, chest and
both legs. On local examination he found the followings:
1. Black eye present in right eye with sub conjunctival
hemorrhage in right eye,
2. Multiple abrasion over neck right side ranging over 1
cm x 0.1 cm. No pattern found.
3. Both nipple lacerated injury present over measuring 1
com x 0.1 cm each.
4. Multiple scratch abrasion over back and chest ranging
2 com x 0.1 cm to 1 cm x 0.1 cm. No specific pattern.
5. Tenderness present in right forearm with bruise in
upper 1/3rd.
6. Multiple abrasion and scratch mark over inner side of
thigh and buttock ranging from 3 cm x 0.1 cm to 1 cm x
0.1 cm.
7. Bruise over right leg 2 cm x 3 cm recent. No joint
deformity.
The above findings was given by her in the back
page of such prayer of the Duty Officer of R.K. Pur Women
PS, Udaipur and the signature has been marked as Exbt. P-
18.
Subsequently he prepared a report in connection with
R.K. Pur GDE No.09 dated 20.11.2021 connecting case
No.2021 RKP 179 dated 20.11.2021 on the examination of
the victim. He had mentioned in his injury report that at
around 12.17 pm he examined the victim medically with
complaint of alleged history of physical assault yesterday
night of blunt trauma over right hand, fact, back, chest and
both legs. On local examination he found the followings:
1. Abrasion in the right side of neck linear, no exact
pattern multiple in numbers measuring 1x 0.1 com to 2x
0.1 cm, recent in age caused by blunt or semi sharp
object.
2. Abrasion in the inner side of both upper thigh linear,
no exact pattern multiple in numbers measuring 3x 0.1
cm to 1x 0.1 cm, recent in age caused by blunt or semi
sharp object.
3. Sub conjunctival hemorrhage with black eye on right
eye conjunctiva and around rightly in irregular shape,
recent in age, caused by blunt object.
4. Bruise on the right forearm anterior aspect in upper
1/3rd area measuring 5 cm x 5 com, recent in age,
caused by blunt object.
5. Bruise on the right leg in middle 1/3rd area measuring
2 cm x 3 cm, recent in age, caused by blunt object.
6. Laceration around right nipple of the right breast over
areola measuring 1 cm x 0.1 cm x skin depth curved,
recent in age, cause by semi sharp or blunt object.
7. Laceration around left nipple of the left breast over
areola measuring 1 cm x 0.1 cm x skin depth curved,
recent in age, caused by semi sharp or blunt object.
8. Multiple abrasion over upper chest around both breast
linear no exact pattern, multiple in numbers measuring
1x 0.1 cm to 2x 0.1 cm recent in age, caused by blunt or
semi sharp object.
9. Abrasion over upper back linear no exact pattern,
multiple in numbers measuring 3x 0.1 cm to 1 x 0.1 cm
recent in age, caused by blunt or semi sharp object.
This was his report in three sheets bearing his
official seal and signatures. On being identified by the
witness the report is hereby marked as Exbt.P-19 and
signatures are marked as Exbt.P-19/1 (series).
During his cross-examination he stated that in his
report all the injuries are simple in nature except the injury
at Sl. No.3. It is not possible to receive such type of injuries
after falling from running motor cycle. There might be
abrasion if the injured got fallen from running motor cycle.
21. PW-12, Pradip Debbarma deposed that on
20.11.2021 he accompanied SI of Police namely Debabrata
Biswas towards Khedabari under PS Sonamura into the
house of one Tajul Islam and at around 12.30 hours said SI
of Police had seized one Maruti Alto 800 vehicle bearing
registration No.TR 04 A 0370 (silver colour), one black
coloured helmet, one pink coloured ladies woolen cap, 4/5
nos. of mobile phones by preparing seizure memo wherein
he put his signature. He identified his signature which is
marked as Exbt.P-3/1. He stated that on that date said
Daragababu also seized one golden coloured ear ring and
mobile phones by preparing separate seizure memo wherein
he put his signature. He identified his signature which is
marked as Exbt.P-4/1 and confirmed the seized articles
which already been marked as Exbt. MO P-1, P-2, P-4, P-5,
P-6 and P-9. He further stated that on 26.11.2021
Darogababu namely Debabrata Biswas also seized one black
colour mobile from the possession Dudhu Miah at Shibnagar
under PS Melaghar by preparing seizure memo wherein he
put his signature and identified his signature marked as
Exbt.P-20. Nothing more came out relevant during cross-
examination.
22. PW-13, Chandan Das stated that one of his
brothers namely Nirmal Das was the previous owner of
Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.TR 04 A 0370 who
sold the same to one Tajul Islam of Sonamura, Khedabari
approximately one year back. He was the middleman of
such transaction. Said Tajul Islam was previously known to
him being his customer who sometimes visited his garage at
Sonamura Motor Stand for repairing of his vehicle. After
that all the vehicular documents has been transferred in the
name of Tajul Islam. On 20.11.2021 police had seized said
Maruti Also car, one black coloured helmet, mobile phones
and other articles by preparing seizure memos wherein he
put his signatures. He identified his signatures marked as
Exbt.P-3/2 and Exbt.P-4/2 and confirmed the seized articles
marked as Exbt.MO P-4, P-5 and P-9, but he was not sure
about the colour of the seized helmet which is marked as
Exbt. MO P-1.
In the cross-examination he deposed that only
the seized car and other articles were shown to him on the
road and being asked by police he put his signatures.
Nothing more came out relevant in the present context.
23. PW-14, Makhan Debnath, SI of Police stated that
on 12.12.2021 he was posted in the Crime Branch, SCRB,
Agartala, West Tripura and on that date the Inspector of
Police namely Smti Mina Debbarma of Crime Branch had
seized dry leaf, soil at Udaipur Smritivan under Killa Forest
Range, Udaipur by preparing seizure memo wherein he put
his signature and he identified his signature marked as
Exbt.P-16/1. Nothing came out relevant in the cross-
examination.
24. PW-15, Dr. Munmun Debbarma stated that on
13.12.2021 she was posted being the Sr. Resident, Dept. of
Psychiatry at AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala and he was
also one of members of one Special Medical Board along
with two other members. On that day they had examined
the victim in connection with R.K. Pur Women PS Case
No.2021 WRP 0077 dated 25.11.2021 under Section 376(D)
of IPC after receiving the requisition from Women Inspector
of Police namely Smti Mina Debbarma of Crime Branch,
Agartala. The examination was commenced at 3.45 pm and
concluded at 4.25 pm. Victim was examined at Labour
room, Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AGMC & GBP
Hospital. The victim was accompanied by one Women Head
Constable namely Smti Bela Rani Debbarma and one
relative namely Smti. Barna Bala Jamatia. The brief history
has been stated in the report itself. The victim stated that
she had taken bath and changed her clothes several time
following the incident, she was complaining of sleep
disturbances, weakness, palpitation, body ache and
fearfulness. She was having repeated crying spells. PW-15
stated that she (the victim) was conscious, cooperative, well
oriented to time, place and person and her gait was normal.
After examination they found mental status of
victim as follows:
Her mood and affect is sad, her psychomotor activity is
decreased and she is having repeated crying spells.
Development of secondary sexual characters:-
Auxiliary hair present, adult type.
Breast: Breast mount is well developed.
Details of injury present over the body:-
1. 3 nos. of cresentric shaped healed abrasions are
present adjacently over an area of 3 cm x 0.8 cm on
the right areola of breast surrounding the nipple.
2. nos. of cresentric shaped healed abrasions are present
adjacently over an area of 3.5 cm x 0.8 cm on the left
areola of breast surrounding the nipple.
3. One healed scar, 3 cm x 1 cm is present on the lower
part of right breast which is situated 4 cm below the
nipple.
4. Multiple healed scratch abrasions, 7 in number are
present on the inner aspect of left leg and left thigh
over an area of 8 cm x 6 cm, ranging in measurement
from 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm upto 1 cm x 0.5 cm.
5. Multiple healed scratch abrasions, 8 in number are
present on the outer aspect of both buttocks over an
area of 14 cm x 10 cm, ranging in measurement from
0.5 cm x 0.2 cm upto 1 cm x 0.5 cm.
6. One yellowish coloured contusion, 1 cm x 0.5 cm is
present on the outer aspect of the right upper eye lid.
On local examination tenderness is elicited in
right buttock and right wrist region.
i. injury No.1, 2 and 3 are possible by human bite.
ii. Injury No.4 is possible by human finger nail tip.
iii. injury No.5 is possible by friction over uneven
surface.
iv. Injury No.6 is possible by hard and blunt force
impact.
All the injuries mentioned above are 3 weeks to 4
weeks in duration at the time of examination.
Examination of the private parts:-
Pubic hair present, adult type, non matted.
Hymen: Old healed tears are present at 3 O‟clock, 5
O‟clock, 6 O‟clock and 9 O‟clock positions.The victim
was discharged after examination with advice‟s.
After receiving the vaginal swab analysis report
they had given final opinion that there is presence of genital
and physical injuries. Although semen/spermatozoa of
human origin could not be detected in the vaginal swab,
there are signs suggestive of forceful sexual intercourse.
The report containing 4 pages bearing her signature.
She identified the report which is marked as Exbt.P-21 and
her signatures including initials are hereby marked as
Exbt.P-21/1 (series).
During cross-examination she stated that the report
does not contain any official seal. Her initial also does not
contain official seal. She also stated that at the time of
examination of the private parts of victim she was present
being one of the members of the Medical Board. She did not
examine the private parts of the victim which was done by
the Gynecologist namely Dr. Madhumita Roy. She has no
specialization in Gynecology and Forensic Medicine. Being
an MBBS doctor She can say about the age of any injury
though she has no specialization in Forensic Medicine. She
has no idea about formation of Medical Board with MD
doctors which was formed by the Health Department since
any MBBS doctor can given opinion about the age of injury
after examination. She further confronted with the
statement that they did not find any injury in the private
parts of the victim though they opined finally that there are
signs suggestive of forceful sexual intercourse.
25. PW-16, Dr. Pradipta Narayan Chakraborty
deposed in the same manner like PW-15, Dr. Munmun
Debbarma.
During cross-examination he stated that the report
does not contain any official seal. His initial also does not
contain official seal. He has specialization in Forensic
Medicine. He was aware that the victim was a married
woman as stated by her. He further stated that all the
injuries mentioned in injury Nos. 1 to 6 are 3 weeks to 4
weeks in duration at the time of examination. It is possible
to tear the hymen in case of married woman. They opined
finally that there are signs suggestive of forceful sexual
intercourse.
26. PW-17, Dr. Mdhumita Roy reiterated the same
version like PWs 15 and 16.
During cross-examination she stated that the
report does not contain any official seal and it also does not
contain any official seal. She has specialization in Obstetrics
and Gynaecology. He was aware that the victim was a
married woman as stated by her. She further stated that all
the injuries mentioned in injury Nos. 1 to 6 are 3 weeks to 4
weeks in duration at the time of examination. It is possible
to tear the hymen in case of married woman. They opined
finally that there are signs suggestive of forceful sexual
intercourse. Nothing more came out relevant from her
cross-examination.
27. PW-18, Haradhan Bhattacharjee deposed that on
20.11.2021 morning time at around 6.00/6.15 am at
Barabhaiya in between Barabhaiya High School to
Barabhaiya PHC, one Darogababu has seized one black
colour money bag, election ID card, PAN card, Debit card of
one Rana Bahadur Jamatia by preparing seizure memo
wherein he put his signature. He identified his signature
marked as Exbt.P-2/2. On that day during morning time he
found those articles while going to his house from Udaipur
rented house and then he informed to the R.K. Pur P/S.
28. PW-19, Supriya Ghosh, Constable of Police stated
that on 20.11.2021 he was performing the guard duty in
night shift at Tepania District Hospital, Gomati from 2.00
am onwards. At around 3.15 am one person namely Rana
Bahadur Jamatia came there and informed him that on that
night while he was returning to house along with his wife in
a motor cycle after attending one mela at Patichari, on the
way at Tepania Eco Park some miscreants dashed twice on
his motor cycle in its back side by one Alto car (silver
colour). As a result his wife fell down from the motor cycle
and both Rana Bahadur Jamatia & his wife assaulted by
those miscreants there. He (Rana Bahadur Jamatia) further
informed him that those miscreants taken away his wife
towards Udaipur by said Alto car. He ran towards the car for
few minutes, but failed to catch the same. Then he came at
Tepania District Hospital and informed him (PW-19) about
the incident. Then he immediately informed the matter to
R.K. Pur PS as well as to the District Control Room about
the incident for taking necessary action.
During cross-examination he told that he stated
to the IO that on the alleged night while Rana Bahadur
Jamatia was going to house after attending one mela at
Patichari, on the way at Tepania Eco Park some miscreants
dashed twice on his motor cycle in its back side are not
there. On drawing attention such statement was not
specifically found to the statement of witness recorded by
I.O. to which he stated that returning from mela at Patichari
and dashing twice on the motor cycle in its back side are
not there. Nothing more came out relevant during his cross-
examination.
29. PW-20, Santanu Debbarma stated that on
12.12.2021 he was posted as the Sr. Scientific Assistant at
District Mobile Forensic Science Laboratory, is short DMFSL,
Dhajanagar, Udaipur and on that date he visited the spot at
around 1230 hours accompanied by the Crime Branch in
connection with R.K. Pur Women PS case No.77/2021 under
Section 376(D) of IPC dated 25.11.2021. The brief history
of the crime were stated in the report itself.
Observations at the PO:
1. The PO is located at Udaipur Smritivan under
Killa Forest Range, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura.
2. No exhibit available at the PO.
3. Soil samples collected from the front and back
sides of the vehicle bearing registration No. TR 04 A
0370 kept at R.K. Pur PS.
4. Control soil collected from the PO.
Three exhibits such as sample soil collected from
the front side and back side of the vehicle bearing
registration No.TR-04 A-0370 and control soil collected from
the PO.
Instructions at serial Nos. 1 to 5 were given to
the IO.
He identified the report dated 21.12.2021 in 3
sheets. On being identified by the witness the report is
marked as Exbt.P-22 and the signature of witness marked
as Exbt.P-22/1.
He further stated that on 23.12.2021 at about 1530
hours he again visited the R.K. Pur PS along with the
Inspector of Crime Branch to make observation over the
vehicles in connection with the above mentioned R.K. Pur
Women PS case number.
Observations over the vehicles:
The incident took place on 20.11.2021 and the
requisition was given on 23.12.2021 by Woman Inspector of
Police, Serious Crime Unit, Tripura Police Crime Branch for
inspecting the vehicles bearing registration No.TR-03H-6702
(Bike) and TR-04A-0370 (Alto Maruti Suzuki).
Both the vehicles are carefully examined at PS and
observed that on the back side of the vehicle bearing
registration NO.TR 03 H 6702 (Bike) the mudguard (the
height of the broken part of mudguard from the ground was
1ft. 5 inch approx.) partly broken and respective height of
the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-04A-0370 (Alto
Maruti Suzuki) has very faint mark without paint on the
area were observed.
The nature of physical evidence suggesting that the
possibilities of mild hitting from the back side of the vehicle
cannot be ruled out.
The report prepared in two sheets bearing his
signature and he identified the report marked as Exbt.P-23
and the signature marked as Exbt.P-23/1.
During cross-examination nothing came out relevant.
30. PW-21, Purabi Jamatia deposed that on
29.11.2021 she was posted as a Head Clerk in the Gomati
District Judiciary, Udaipur and on that date she had
performed the duty to interpret the version of victim from
Kokborok to Bengali and vice versa while recording the
statement of victim by the Learned J.M. 1st class, Shri
Rajarshi Chakraborty, Udaipur, Gomati in connection with
R.K. Pur Women PS case No.2021 WRP 0077. After
completion of recording the version of victim she put her
two signatures therein. She identified her signatures
marked as Exbt.P-12/1(series). During cross-examination
nothing came out relevant.
31. PW-23, Dr. Subhankar Nath deposed that on
20.12.2021 he was posted as the Deputy Director, DNA
Typing Division, at SFSL, Narsingarh, Agartala and on that
date he received the Exhibit marked „K‟ from
Biology/Serology Division as received by them on
16.12.2021 in connection with R.K. Pur Women PS case
No.77/2021 under Section 376(D) of IPC dated 25.11.2021
and R.K. Pur PS case No.2021/RKP/179 dated 20.11.2021
under Sections 397/400/367 of IPC and added Section
354(B) of IPC.
The period of examination was from 20.12.2021
to 24.12.2021. The description of Exhibit „K‟ was described
in details in his report.
Results of examination:-
The Exhibit mark „K‟ was subjected for DNA test
as per standard protocol and the details of methodology was
mentioned in page 2 of his report.
Conclusion:
The blood stain detected in Exhibit K (source:
cloth pieces of one brassiere of victim) belongs to human
female.
This is his report dated 24.12.2021 in 4 sheets
bearing his signatures in every pages. He identified the
report marked as Exbt.P-25 and also identified the
signatures marked as Exbt.P-25/1(series).
On 21.12.2021 he received one sealed parcel
forwarded by the Deputy SP (Crime Branch, Tripura Police,
Agartala in connection with R.K. Pur Women PS case
No.77/2021 under Section 376(D) of IPC dated 25.11.2021
and R.K. Pur PS case No.2021/RKP/179 dated 20.11.2021
under Sections 397/400/367 of IPC and added Section
354(B) of IPC.
The period of examination was from 21.12.2021 to
24.12.2021.
The description of Exhibit „O‟ was given in details in
the report itself.
Results of examination:
The sealed parcel contained one Exhibit - „O‟ which
was the control blood sample of victim. DNA test was
conducted on Exhibit - „O‟ as per standard protocol and
such detailed methodology was mentioned in the page No.2
of the present report.
Observation:
After DNA test (1) a female genetic profile was
generated from Exhibit „O‟ (source: control blood sample of
victim)
(2) The alleles of the amplified loci of DNA profile of
Exhibit „O‟ (source: control blood samples of victim) and
Exhibit K (source: cloth pieces of oen brassiere of victim
matches with each other)
Conclusion:
On the basis of the above observations it is concluded
that the blood stain detected in Exhibit „K‟ (source: control
blood sample of victim).
He identified his report dated 24.12.2021 in 4 sheets
bearing his signatures in each pages marked as Exbt.P-26
and also identified his signatures marked as Exbt.P-26/1
(series).
Nothing came out relevant during cross-examination.
32. PW-24 Debjani Majumder deposed that on
01.12.2021 she was posted as the J.M. 1st class, Court
No.1, Udaipur, Gomati and on that date she had conducted
the TI parade in connection with R.K. Pur PS case
No.2021/RKP/179. The date, time and venue of such TI
parade was on 01.12.2021 at around 3.10 pm at Udaipur
District Jail. The witness namely Rana Bahadur Jamatia
stated that he has seen the accused by face and he can
identify the accused person. The manner of conducting TI
parade has been mentioned in the para No.7 of his report
elaborately. The result of TI parade was that the witness
identified the suspect Dudhu Miah by pointing towards him
and touching his shoulder. The suspect also stated that he is
innocent and he has no idea about this case. Then she
prepared the TI parade report dated 01.12.2021 after
obtaining signatures of witnesses. The TI parade report
contained in 3 sheets and she identified the report marked
as Exbt.P-8/1 (as a whole). On the same date she again
conducted another TI parade in connection with the same
PS case number. The date, time and venue of such TI
parade was on 01.12.2021 at around 3.25 pm at Udaipur
District Jail. The suspect was Dudhu Miah who was kept
inside of lock up No.4 at Udaipur District jail. The
witness/victim stated that she has seen the accused by face
and she can identify the accused person. The manner of
conducting TI parade has been mentioned in the para No.7
of her report elaborately. The result of TI parade was that
the witness identified the suspect Dudhu Miah by pointing
towards him. The suspect also stated that he is innocent
and he has no idea about this case. Then she prepared the
TI parade report dated 01.12.2021 after obtaining
signatures of witnesses. This TI parade report contained in 3
sheets and she identified the report marked as Exbt.P-13/1
(as a whole). Again on 10.12.2021 she conducted another
TI parade in connection with the same PS case number. The
date, time and venue of such TI parade was on 10.12.2021
at around 3.10 pm at Udaipur District complex. The suspect
was Samiman Hossein who was kept inside the lock up No.4
at Udaipur District jail. The witness namely Rana Bahadur
Jamatia stated that he has seen the accused by face and he
can identify the accused person. The manner of conducting
TI parade has been mentioned in para No.7 of her report
elaborately. The result of TI parade was that the witness
identified the suspect Samiman Hossein by touching his
shoulders. The suspect stated that he is innocent and he
has no idea about this case. Then she prepared the TI
parade report dated 10.12.2021 after obtaining signatures
of witnesses. The TI parade report contained in 3 sheets
and she identified the report marked as Exbt.P-9/1 (as a
whole).
During cross-examination WV that she conducted
the TI parade after passing necessary order in the
supplementary file during police file after receiving the order
of Learned CJM in this regard which is available with the
case record. She further stated in the cross-examination in
para No.8 of her TI parade report dated 10.12.2021 she
made correction of the word „touching‟ without putting her
initial. Nothing came our relevant in the present context.
33. PW-25 Sabyasachi Nath deposed that on
01.12.2021 he was posted in the SFSL, Narsingarh, Agartala
as the Sr. Scientific Officer cum ACE (Biology/Serology
Division) and on that date he received one sealed parcel
bearing gala seal impressions (SDPO, Udaipur) containing
following exhibits in connection with R.K. Pur Women PS
case No.2021/WRP/077 dated 25.11.2021 under Section
376D of IPC. The period of examination was 02.12.2021 to
09.12.2021. Details of parcels of exhibits received are
mentioned in the para No.10 of his report elaborately. The
result of examination: semen/spermatozoa of human origin
could not be detected in the exhibits A1 and A2. His report
dated 09.12.2021 contained in 1 sheet and which is marked
as Exbt.P-26 (as a whole).
On 16.12.2021 he also received 2 sealed parcels
in connection with same PS case number and R.K. Pur PS
case No.2021/RKP/179 dated 20.11.2021 under Section
397/400/367 of IPC and added section 354B of IPC. The
period of examination was 17.12.2021 to 21.12.2021.
Details of parcels and exhibits received are mentioned in
para No.10 of his report.
The results of examination:-
i)human blood was detected in the exhibit K and its
ground could be determined as "B" group
ii) blood stain could not be detected in the exhibit
H, I, J, L and M.
iii) semen, spermatozoa/saliva/hair of human origin
could not be detected in the exhibits H, I, J, K, L
and M.
iv)epithelial cell could not be detected in the exhibit
M.
In the note No.3 he had mentioned that after
examination/sub-sampling of the exhibits the stained
portion of one exhibit marked as K was forwarded to DNA
typing Division for generation of DNA profile and report. The
report dated 23.12.2021 in 1 sheet and identified the report
which is marked as Exbt.P-27 (as a whole).
On 23.12.2021 he again received one sealed parcel in
connection with the same PS case number. The period of
examination was 23.12.2021 to 24.12.2021. The details of
parcel and exhibits received are mentioned in para No.10 of
his report elaborately. The results of examination: blood
stain was not detected in the exhibit P. The report dated
24.12.2021 contained in 1 sheet marked as Exbt.P-28 (as a
whole).
On 29.12.2021 he further received two sealed parcels
in connection with the same PS case numbers. The period of
examination was 30.12.2021 to 05.01.2022. The details of
parcel and exhibits received are mentioned in para No.10 of
his report elaborately. The results of examination:
semen/spermatozoa/saliva/epithelial cell/hair of human
origin could not be detected in the exhibits V, W, X, Y, Z, AA
and BB. The report dated 06.01.2022 contained in two
pages which is marked as Exbt.P-29 (as a whole).
34. PW-26 Dr. Narenjit Das deposed that on
18.12.2021 he was posted as the Medical Officer in the
District Hospital, Tepania, Gomati District and on that date
he prepared the injury report of the injured namely Rana
Bahadur Jamatia in connection with R.K.Pur PS case
No.179/2021 under Section of IPC. The report was prepared
as per the OPD ticket of Gomati District Hospital, Udaipur to
which it was revealed that it was the case of alleged
physical assault. He found that injured Rana Bahadur
Jamatia received contusion injury on neck. The injury was
simple. He identified his report marked as Exbt.P-30 (as a
whole). Nothing came out relevant during cross-
examination.
35. PW-27 Jayanta Das stated that on 24.11.2021 he
was posted in the Radhapur PS as I/C Inspector. On that
date at around 6.30 pm their PS received one requisition
from the Medical Officer namely Dr. Aranyamohan Jamatia
of Kherengbari CHC, Khumulung, Jirania. Then he visited
the said CHC with one woman Constable namely Smti
Sumati Debbarma and other staff. Then he received one
written complaint of the victim dated 24.11.2021 at 2030
hours which was noted in the GD vide Radhapur PS GD
Entry No.25 dated 24.11.2021 and forwarded the same to
the O/C of R.K. Pur PS along with two extract copies of GD
entry Nos.22 and 25 for taking necessary action. He
identified the note in the written complaint marked as
Exbt.P-11/1, the extract copies of those GD entries are
marked as Exbt.P-31 and Exbt.P-32. He also identified his
signature in the GD entry No.22 marked as Exbt.P-31/1 and
the signature of the O/C of Radhapur PS marked as Exbt.P-
31/2. He also identified his signature in the GD entry No.25
which is marked as Exbt.P-32/2. Then he arranged for
medical examination of victim in the Kheregbar CHC by
Medical Officer. Then he prepared one seizure memo dated
24.11.2021 in connection with Radhapur PS GD Entry No.22
dated 24.11.2021 after the seizure of two nos of plastic
containers containing vaginal swab of the victim in presence
of witnesses. He identified the seizure memo dated
24.11.2021 marked as Exbt.P-14/1. He also forwarded the
two nos. of plastic containers along with the written
complaint to the O/C of R.K. Pur PS.
36. PW-28 Dr. Jayashri Debbarma deposed that on
28.12.2021 he was posted as the Medical Officer in the
Tripura Sundari Sub-Divisional Hospital, Udaipur and on that
date he had conducted potency test of the accused persons
namely Saddam Hussein, Rabban Ali, Dudhu Miah,
Samiman Hussein and Tajul Islam in connection with R.K.
Pur Women PS case No.2021 WRP 0077 dated 25.11.2021
under Section 376(D) of IPC. After potency test he found
there was nothing to suggest that the above persons are
incapable of performing the sexual act. He also filled up the
printed blood sample authentication form of each of the
above named accused persons after collecting blood sample
for the purpose of potency test. Then he prepared the
potency test reports. He identified those reports along with
blood sample authentication form are hereby marked as
Exbt.P-33 (Saddam Hussein) , Exbt.P-34 (Rabban Ali),
Exbt.P-35 (Dudhu Miah), Exbt.P-36 (Samiman Hussein) and
Exbt.P-37 (Tajul Islam). He also identified the blood sample
authentication form which are marked as Exbt.P-33/1
(Saddam Hussein), Exbt.P-34/1 (Rabban Ali), Exbt.P-35/1
(Dudhu Miah), Exbt.P-36/1 (Samiman Hussein) and Exbt.P-
37/1 (Tajul Islam). He also put his signature in the seizure
memo dated 28.12.2021 after the seizure of blood samples
of above named accused persons by the Inspector of Police
of Crime Branch namely Mina Debbarma. He identified his
signature marked as Exbt.P-38.
During cross-examination he stated that the
incident took place on 20.11.2021 and he examined the
accused persons on 28.12.2021. He stated that his opinion
regarding potency test of those accused persons are of
similar nature. He further stated that all the accused
persons are brought before him by the attending police
namely Inspector Mina Debbarma which he already
mentioned in his report. Nothing more came out relevant in
the present context.
37. PW-29 Jangal Debi Jamatia deposed that on
28.12.2021 she was posted in the TSSD Hospital as a Staff
Nurse and on that date the Inspector of Police, Crime
Branch namely Smti Mina Debbarma had seized blood
samples of 5 persons by preparing seizure memo wherein
she put her signature in the seizure memo marked as
Exbt.P-38/1. The blood samples was collected by her and
handed over to the said Inspector of Police through Medical
Officer Dr. Jayashri Debbarma of TSSD Hospital, Udaipur.
During cross-examination she stated that in the
seizure memo the date was overwritten and she
volunteered that she was posted in the TSSD Hospital since
1st August, 2012. She had to put signature in the
attendance register when she attended the office, but no
signature at the time of leaving the office though he handed
over the duty. Nothing more came out relevant.
38. PW-30 Dr. Araino Mohan Jamatia deposed that
on 24.11.2021 he was posted as a Medical Officer in the
Kherengbari CHC, Khumulung and on that date he examined
the victim at Kherengbar CHC as per the requisition of IO.
He had also taken the signature of victim in the consent for
medical examination. The victim was brought and identified
by Woman Constable namely Smt. Sumati Debbarma. On
general examination he found multiple bite marks were
present over both nipples. On systemic examination he
found multiple abrasion present over inner aspect of thigh
and gluteal region. On pre-vaginal examination he found
healed hymen. Investigation was advised for vaginal swab
and HCG for urine. The victim had taken bath and changed
dress at home before attending Kherengbari CHC. He
prepared the report on 03.12.2021 after keeping pending
his opinion there. The report contained in two sheets
bearing his signatures and official seal. He identified the
report marked as Exbt.P-39 and also identified the signature
marked as Exbt.P-39/1. Thereafter, on 18.12.2021 he
submitted his final opinion wherein he opined that there is
evidence of vaginal penetration by adult penis or penis sized
object. Though the vaginal swab analysis report is negative
for the presence of spermatozoa of human origin, however
possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. He
identified the report of his final opinion dated 18.12.2021
marked as Exbt.P-40 and signature marked as Exbt.P-40/1.
He put his signature in the seizure memo dated 24.11.2021
after the collection and handing over of vaginal swab of the
victim to the IO. He identified his signature marked as
Exbt.P-14/2. He also informed the matter of victim in
writing to the O/C of Radhapur PS as victim admitted into
the CHC with history of sexual assault. He identified the said
information in writing dated 24.11.2021 marked as Exbt.P-
41 (as a whole). Nothing came out relevant.
39. PW-31 Archana Reang deposed that on
26.11.2021 she was posted as the J.M. 1st Class, Court
No.2, Udaipur, Gomati and on that date he had conducted
the TI parade in connection with R.K. Pur PS case
No.2021/RKP/179. The date, time and venue of such TI
parade was on 26.11.2021 at around 3.20 pm in
Library/School room of Udaipur District Jail. The name of
the suspects were Tajul Islam, Saddam Hussein and Rabban
Ali. The identifying witness namely Rana Bahadur Jamatia
has identified all the three suspects by face only and stated
that accused Rabban Ali has chased them with dao during
the incident. The manner of conducting TI parade has been
elaborately mentioned in para No.7. The result of TI parade
as mentioned in para No.8 that the witness has identified
two suspects by pointing fingers and one by touching on the
chest of suspect. Then she certified the TI parade with her
seal and signature. The memorandum of TI parade report
contained in 5 sheets and she identified the report and her
signature marked as Exbt.P-10/1(series) and Exbt.P-10/2
respectively.
During cross-examination she stated that on
21.11.2021 three accused persons were produced before
her and as per prayer of the IO three days‟ police remand
was allowed. On that date TI parade prayer was also there.
Regarding TI parade prayer she passed an order that
"effective order in this regard may be given on 23.11.2021."
On 23.11.2021 they were produced before the then regular
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati, Udaipur on completion of
police remand. In her memorandum of TI parade in column
No.5 she had written that all the three accused persons
were produced from police remand and they were kept in
one office room before TI parade.
40. PW-32 Debabrata Biswas deposed that on
20.11.2021 he was posted as the SI of police at R.K. Pur PS
being the in-charge of that PS. On that date at around 0320
hours the Duty Officer of R.K. Pur PS namely ASI Prabir
Chanda received an information by telephone from the
police guard of Gomati District Hospital, Tepania that one
Rana Bahadur Jamatia came there and informed that on
that night at around 0300 hours some unknown miscreants
kidnapped his wife by one silver coloured Alto 800 vehicle
from Tepania area near Eco Park, that time those
miscreants also assaulted said Rana Bahadur Jamatia and
his wife. The matter was brought to his knowledge being the
In-charge of R.K. Pur PS and also to the night Mobile Officer
over telephone for taking necessary action. The said facts
was entered in the GD vide R.K. Pur PS GD Entry No.03
dated 20.11.2021. Then he along with other staff left the PS
to verify the information by entering into the GD vide No.04
dated 20.11.2021. He identified the extract copy of GD vide
entry No.03 and 04 dated 20.11.2021 marked as Exbt.P-42.
Then he proceeded towards Gomati District Hospital,
Tepania wherein he met with Rana Bahadur Jamatia who
stated to him the facts already entered vide GD entry No.03
and in addition further stated that his helmet (black colour)
written as "Auto green" and one Vivo mobile phone were
taken by those miscreants. Then he proceeded towards the
spot along with Rana Bahadur Jamatia at NH-8 road near
Tepania Eco Park. There he found some scuffling marks and
it appears to him some incident of cognizable offence, as
such he started investigation there. Then he sent SMS to
the SP, DIB, Gomati for tracking the location of accused
persons through mobile of informant which was taken by
them. Subsequently the mobile was recovered as broken
from the NH-8 road nearby the PO. After searching nearby
the PO he found one broken ladies slipper and broken pieces
of bangle (while colour) of victim. The he had seized those
articles by preparing seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 at
around 0458 hours in connection with R.K. Pur PS GD entry
No.03 dated 20.11.2021. He identified the seizure memo
dated 20.11.2021 marked as Exbt.P-1/2 and also confirmed
the seized mobiles, ladies slipper and bangles marked as
Exbt.Mo P-5 (series). Then at around 0545 hours he
received a telephonic information from one Haradhan
Bhattacharjee of Barabhaiya that he found suspected
articles in front of his house. Then he proceeded there and
found black coloured money bag, election ID card, PAN
card, 2 nos of Debit Card of SBI and Corporation Bank of
Rana Bahadur Jamatia which he had seized by preparing
seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 at around 0615 hours. He
identified the seizure memo marked as Exbt.P-2/3. After
that he received a secret information that the offending car
has proceeded towards Khedabari under Sonamura PS and
immediately he rushed to Khedabari to the house of one
Tajul Islam. There he found the suspected vehicle TR-04D-
0370 Maruti Suzuki Alto 800 (silver colour) parked in the
courtyard of Tajul Islam. They also detained Tajul Islam
from his house when he tried to flee away after seeing
them. Then he inspected the suspected vehicle and after
opening the door he found the helmet (black colour) marked
as "Auto green" and one ladies woolen cap (pink colour)
inside the vehicle on the back seat. The suspected behicle
was found in haphazard condition and the engine was also
found overheated. Then he took the photograph of helmet
and ladies woolen cap in his mobile and sent the same to
the PS for verification by Rana Bahadur Jamatia, who
subsequently confirmed that the helmet was of himself and
woolen cap was belongs to his wife. Then he had seized the
suspected vehicle bearing registration NO.TR 04 A 0370,
Maruti Suzuki Alto 800 (silver colour), black coloured
helmet, pink coloured ladies woolen cap, three mobile
phones in the possession of Tajul Islam by preparing seizure
memo. The seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 marked as
Exbt.P-3/3. On preliminary investigation of Tajul Islam he
came to know the name of other associates who were
involved in the alleged incident. On query Tajul Islam also
stated that the victim woman was pushed off from the
moving vehicle nearby gas godown of Tepania Park. Then
he shared the information with the R.K. Pur PS. Then he
rushed towards the house of other associates namely
Saddam Hussein and Rabban Ali both of Khedabari and
detained them. From the pant pocket of Rabban Ali he
found one ear top of golden colour which he had seized by
preparing seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 along with tow
mobiles from the possession of accused Rabban Ali. He
identified the seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 marked as
Exbt.P-4/3.
After that he proceeded towards the PS along
with those three persons after covering their face. Then
after reaching the PS he made GD entry vide No.16 dated
20.11.2021 at around 1340 hours for coming back to the
PS. In the PS he received the specific complaint of
informant Rana Bahadur Jamatia and registered the same
vide R.K. Pur PS case No.2021/RKP/179 under Sections
397/400/367 of IPC. The receipt and registration of ejahar
marked as Exbt.P-5/1. There he came to know further that
wife of Rana Bahadur Jamatia i.e. the victim already been
recovered and taken to the R.K. Pur Women PS in the
custody of Woman SI of police namely Smti. Sumitra Kapali.
Then he collected the statement of victim recorded by the
said Woman SI of Police namely Smti Sumitra Kapali and
tagged in connection with R.K. Pur PS case No.179/2021.
After medical examination of victim she was handed over to
the custody of her family members. On that date he had
recorded the statement of informant Rana Bahadur Jamatia
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Again he visited the PO on
20.11.2021 at around 1515 hours and prepared the hand
sketch map with separate index. He identified the hand
sketch map marked as Exbt.P-43 and index is marked as
Exbt.P-44. On the basis of material collected during his
investigation he had arrested accused persons namely Tajul
Islam, Saddam Hussein and Rabban Ali. He has also seized
one motor cycle bearing registration No.TR-08D-7696 Bajaj
Pulsar 125 CC from the residence of Rabban Ali which was
stolen from Patichari Rashmela under Santirbazar PS and it
was informed to Santirbazar PS accordingly. The said motor
cycle was handed over to the Santirbazar PS after its
seizure along with seizure memo.
On 21.11.2021 he had forwarded the arrested
three accused persons on face covered (SO) to the court
along with police remand prayer and for adding section
354B of IPC. On the same date he had recorded statement
of some witnesses. After the expiry of police remand period
all the accused persons again brought to the court on
23.11.2021. The Learned court had allowed the TI parade
prayer which was to be held on 26.11.2021. Accordingly on
26.11.2021 TI parade was conducted at Gomati District Jail
in the presence of Learned Magistrate Smti Archana Reang.
During his investigation it was also revealed that the mobile
phone i.e. Infix mobile (already marked as Exbt.M.O.-P-5
series) which was found in the possession of Tajul Islam
was snatched away from the house of one Haripada Shil of
Bagma, Barabhaiya on 11.09.2021 at night and there was a
specific case in connection with that incident vide R.K. Pur
PS case No.2021/RKP/141 dated 12.09.2021 under Sections
448/384/34 of IPC. On 26.11.2021 he had arrested another
accused namely Dudhu Miah and had seized one mobile
phone from his possession by preparing seizure memo
dated 26.11.2021. He identified the seizure memo marked
as Exbt.P-20/1. Then accused was forwarded to the court
with police remand prayer having face cover and TI parade
prayer. On 01.12.2021 the TI parade was done at Gomati
District Jail by Learned Magistrate Smti Debjani Majumder.
On 05.12.2021 he again arrested another accused Samiman
Hussein and forwarded him before the Learned court on
06.12.2021 with police remand and TI parade prayer. On
10.12.2021 the TI parade was done at Gomati District Jail
by Learned Magistrate Smti. Debjani Majumder. On
25.11.2021 he received one zero FIR from Radhapur PS of
informant Smti Alani Sakhi Jamatia along with some seized
articles which he registered vide R.K. Pur PS GD entry
No.25 dated 25.11.2021. The original complain petition
along with some seized articles was forwarded to the O/C,
R.K. Pur Women PS as the offence was crime against
woman. The endorsement in the FIR of informant/victim
marked as Exbt.P-11/2. On 12.12.2021 he handed over the
case docket to the Inspector of Crime Branch Smti Mina
Debbarma. He identified all the accused persons in the court
dock.
During cross-examination he deposed ASI Prabir
Chanda, the Duty Officer after receiving the information
from the Police guard of District Hospital, Tepania has
entered the facts in GD No.3 dated 20.11.2021. He had
gone out from the PS vide GD No.4 dated 20.11.2021 at
around 0330 hours and all the actions taken by him till
returning to the PS was in connection with that GD No.4. He
prepared seizure memos by mentioning GD entry No.3
dated 20.11.2021. He had mentioned Khedabari in his
seizure under PS R.K.Pur mistakenly. He had mentioned in
the seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 at around 1245 hours
that the place of seizure was at Khedabari in the house of
Tajul Islam. He further stated that in the seizure memo
dated 20.11.2021 prepared at around 1245 hours name of
witnesses in the serial (ii) only father‟s name was
mentioned. The seizure memo dated 20.11.2021 prepared
at around 1230 hours revealed under the description of
seized articles that the seized item No.(ii) and (iii)
recovered from inside of vehicle TR-03H-6702. WV he had
mentioned as enclosed in the forwarding in the Sl. No.4
about 4 copies of seizure lists. He further stated that the
order dated 21.11.2021 passed by the Learned JM 1st Class,
Gomati, Udaipur does not speak specifically about tagging
of those 4 nos. of seizure memos in case No.2021/RKP/179.
He had given information in his forwarding dated
21.11.2021 about the course of his investigation though did
not make a prayer for tagging the GD entry No.4 with R.K.
Pur PS case No.179 of 2021. Till 26.11.2021 all the three
accused persons namely Tajul Islam, Saddam Hussein and
Rabban Ali were on police remand after the completion of
first period of police remand on 23.11.2021. On 26.11.2021
all the three accused persons produced before the court. He
expressed his views before this court when he received the
ejahar of Rana Bahadur Jamatia that time it was within his
knowledge that wife of Rana Bahadur has already been
recovered. He also made conversation with the wife of Rana
Bahadur Jamatia at R.K. Pur PS though did not write the
same in black and white. So far as he remember the eyes of
the victim was swollen with red colour, abrasion marks over
the face and she was having anxiety due to the incident and
she also could not speak properly and was very fragile.
41. PW-33 Mina Debbarma deposed that on
05.12.2021 he was posted in the Crime Branch of Tripura
Police, Police Head Quarter, Agartala and on that date he
received one R.K. Pur Women PS vide No.2021/WRP/077.
After that he recorded the statement of previous IO namely
Smti Sumitra Kapali under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On
07.12.2021 she examined three witnesses and recorded
their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On
08.12.2021 she had seized some articles such as black
coloured flower printed top, gray coloured bra, black
coloured jeans, jeans jackets, prescription of Kherengbari
hospital, Khumulung, prescription of AGMC & GB Hospital
and one ear ring by preparing seizure memo. She identified
the seizure memo dated 08.12.2021 marked as Exbt.P-7/3.
She confirmed the seized articles on being produced before
her marked as Exbt.M.O.P-8 (series). On that date she had
visited the PO as accompanied by the victim and prepared
two hand sketch maps with separate indexes. The hand
sketch maps marked as Exbt.P-45 and Exbt.P-47, the
indexes are marked as Exbt.P-46 and Exbt.P-48. On the
same date he also seized some articles such as, one leather
ladies belt (black colour), two pieces of broken bangles
(sakha in white colour), one towel, one iron rod, one iron
wheel spanner and "S" logo of silver colour by preparing
seizure memo which he identified marked as Exbt.P-6/3.
She confirmed the seized articles marked as Exbt.M.O.P-7
(series). On 12.12.2021 he examined two more witnesses
by recording their statements. On the same day he again
visited the PO along with forensic team and collected dry
leaf, soil from PO by preparing seizure memo. He identified
the seizure memo dated 12.12.2021 marked as Exbt.P-
16/2. On 13.12.2021 she made a prayer before the
authority of AGMC & GB Hospital to examine the victim with
a Medical team which was allowed and victim was examined
accordingly. On 14.12.2021 he received the case docket of
another case vide R.K. Pur PS case No.179/2021. On the
same date she made a prayer before the Ld. CJM, Gomati,
Udaipur for amalgamation/clubbing of R.K. Pur Women PS
case No.2021/WRP/0077 dated 25.11.2021 and R.K. Pur PS
case No.2021/RKP/179 dated 20.11.2021 which was
allowed by the Ld. CJM vide order dated 31.12.2021. On
16.12.2021 the seized leaf and soil has been sent to SFSL
for forensic examination. On 17.12.2021 he received the
report of victim of the team of Medical Officers from AGMC
& GB Hospital. On 18.12.2021 again she collected another
medical report of victim from the Medical Officer of
Kherengbari CHC, Khumulung, collected SCD from Radhapur
PS and recorded the statement of Medical Officer of
Kherengbari CHC. On 20.12.2021 blood of victim was
collected and seized at TSSD Hospital, Udaipur by preparing
seizure memo. She identified the seizure memo marked as
Exbt.P-15/2. Then she also collected the medical report of
victim from TSSD Hospital, Udaipur and recorded the
statements of Medical Officer along with others. On
21.12.2021 the collected blood has been sent to SFSL for
examination. On 23.12.2021 she had collected one ST
certificate of victim by preparing seizure memo. She
identified the seizure memo dated 23.12.2021 marked as
Exbt.P-49. On 24.12.2021 she received three numbers of
SFSL reports. On 27.12.2021 she received the court order
for collecting the blood of all the accused persons and
accordingly on 28.12.2021 blood has been collected at
TSSD Hospital, Udaipur. She identified the seizure memo
marked as Exbt.P-38/2. On 28.12.2021 the wearing
apparels of all the accused persons has been seized by
preparing seizure memo. She identified the seizure memo
dated 28.12.2021 marked as Exbt.P-50. On 28.12.2021 she
again visited the PO along with the Deputy Collector and
Magistrate Smti Sumita Sen. There she found one light grey
coloured round neck T-shirt of accused Tajul Islam which
was seized by her by preparing seizure memo dated
28.12.2021. She identified the seizure memo dated
28.12.2021 marked as Exbt.P-51. On the same date the
potency test of all the accused persons has been done at
TSSD Hospital, Udaipur. On 29.12.2021 the blood samples
of all the accused persons has been sent to SFSL for
forensic examination. On 31.12.2021 her prayer for adding
Section3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 was allowed. On 31.12.2021 she
collected the potency test report of all the accused persons
from the TSSD Hospital, Udaipur. On 01.01.2022 she
handed over the case docket to the Deputy SP namely Ajoy
Kumar Das after adding of sections under the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. She identified all the
accused persons in the court in the dock.
During cross-examination she stated that on
05.12.2021 she received the case docket of R.K. Pur
Women PS case No.2021/WRP/077 along with the
statement of victim wherein victim did not speak about
rape. On 14.12.2021 she received the case docket of R.K.
Pur PS case No.179/2021 along with some seizure memos
and articles. She further stated that after the seizure of soil,
leaf and other articles covered in an envelop she had put
mark over the envelop that those are collected from the PO.
Nothing came out relevant in the present context.
42. PW-34 Rajarshi Chakraborty deposed that on
29.11.2021 he was posted as J.M. 1st Class, Court No.3,
Udaipur, Gomati and on that date he had recorded the
statement of victim under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. in
connection with R.K. Pur Women PS case
No.2021/WRP/0077 on oath as per the version of the
witness. Then the same was read over to the witness to
which she admits to be correctly recorded and then the
witness put her signature therein. One interpreter namely
Smti Purabi Jamatia, Head Clerk of DJ establishment has
been appointed on oath to interpret the version of witness
and vise versa. The interpreter also put her signature
therein. Then he put his signatures in the statement of
witness as the Recording Magistrate. He identified the
statement of victim/witness recorded by him marked as
Exbt.P-12/2 (series) and also identified the signature of
witness marked as Exbt.P-12/3 (series). Nothing came out
relevant during cross-examination.
43. PW-35 Ajay Kumar Das deposed that he was the
Supervising Officer as per the order of the SP (SC and EO),
TPCB based on the order of DGP, Tripura vide No.20653-
58(3)/F.6(20)-PHQ(CS)/2019 (Loose) dated 02.12.2021
when previous IO namely Smti Mina Debbarma, I/C-
Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Agartala took up the case
bearing No.R.K. Pur Women PS 77 of 2021 (SO). On
28.12.2021 the I/C-Inspector of Police namely Smti Mina
Debbarma forwarded note of exhibits to the Director, SFSL,
Narsingarh, Agartala wherein he put his signature as the
forwarding authority and also issued the certificate. He
identified the signature marked as Exbt.P-52 and the
certificate marked as Exbt.P-53. He again put his signature
in the forwarding note of exhibits to the Director, SFSL,
Narsingarh, Agartala on the same date as the forwarding
authority along with certificate and check list in two sheets.
He identified the signature marked as Exbt.P-54, the
certificate marked as Exbt.P-55 and check list marked as
Exbt.P-56 (series). On 23.12.2021 he again forwarded the
material exhibits to the Director, SFSL with the enclosure of
forwarding proforma, copy of two FIRs and copy of seizure
lists marked as Exbt.P-57 (series). On 20.12.2021 he again
forwarded the material exhibits with the enclosure of
forwarding proforma, copy of two FIRs and copy of seizure
list 1 number marked as Exbt.P-58 (series). On 14.12.2021
he had sent a requisition for providing certified copy of CDR
and CAF to the Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel Limited,
Guwahati, Assam which is marked as Exbt.P-59. On
01.01.2022 they received the report of CDR from Jio,
Guwahati Branch along with 65B Evidence Act certificate in
respect of the mobile of complainant namely Rana Bahadur
Jamatia bearing mobile No.8088980825. On 07.01.2022 he
received the report from SFSL, Physics Division, Narsingarh
wherein it was mentioned that the soil found in the shoes of
accused Rabban Ali seized from Udaipur Jail matched with
the soil collected from the place of occurrence. On that date
he also received the finger print report from Finger Print Cell
of SCRB, Agartala. On that date he again received report
from Biology Division, SFSL, Narsingarh after sending
wearing apparels of accused persons. On 29.01.2022 he had
sent a requisition to the JTC, Agartala to provide vehicle
details of seized vehicle bearing No.TR-04A-0370 and on
31.01.2022 he received the screening report from the office
of JTC wherein it was found that vehicle was registered in
the name of accused Tajul Islam. On 04.02.2022 he laid
down the charge sheet vide R.K. Pur CS No.14 of 2022
under Sections 397/327/347/366/376(D)/400/506/34/120B
of IPC and under Sections
3(1)(W)(i)/3(1)(w)(ii)/3(2)(va)/7(1) of the SC and ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused
persons namely Tajul Islam, Saddam Hussein, Rabban Ali,
Dudhu Miah and Samiman Hussein alias Nayan. In his
charge sheet sub-para No.23 he had specifically mentioned
about the involvement of FIR named accused persons in
various cases. He identified all the accused persons in the
court in the dock.
During cross-examination he stated that as per
order of SP (SC & EO), Tripura Police Crime Branch vide DO
No.15883-89/SP(SC&EO)/TPCB/2021 dated 31.12.2021 the
case was endorsed to him and accordingly on 01.01.2022
he received the case docket and took up investigation.
Nothing more came out relevant from cross-examination.
44. PW-36 Dr. Ajitesh Paul deposed that on
29.12.2021 he was posted as the Scientific Officer-cum-
Asstt. Chemical Examiner, SFSL, Narsingarh, Agartala and
on that date he received one sealed parcel form the Deputy
SP (Crime Branch), Tripura Police Crime Branch, Agartala in
connection with R.K. Pur PS case No.2021/WRP/0077 dated
25.11.2021 under Section 376(D) of IPC and R.K. Pur PS
case No.2021/RKP/179 dated 20.11.2021 under Sections
397/400/367 and added Section 354B of IPC. The
descriptions of the parcels are mentioned elaborately in the
report itself at column No.9. After examination of the said
Exhibit "CC" and Exhibit "D" he opined that the physical and
microscopic examination revealed that the soil detected on
the Exhibit marked as "CC" and the soil sample marked as
"D" are similar with respect to their physical properties like
colour, particle structure, particle density, distribution,
pattern etc. He identified his signature and specimen seal
marked as Exbt.P-52 and signature marked as Exbt.P-52/1.
45. PW-37 Dr. Uma Debbarma deposed that on
20.12.2021 she was posted as the Medical Officer in the
TSSD Hospital, and on that date blood sample of victim was
collected in connection with R.K. Pur PS case
No.2021/WRP/0077 under Section 376(D) of IPC. Then one
blood sample authentication form also been issued for the
purpose of SFSL examination wherein she put her
signatures one covering the photograph of the victim. She
identified the authentication form marked as Exbt.P-17/1
and signature of the witness marked as Exbt.P-17/2(series).
She also put her another signature in the seizure memo as
the producer of blood sample of victim. She identified her
signature marked as Exbt.P-15/3. Nothing came out
relevant from the cross-examination.
46. PW-38 Sumita Sen stated that on 28.12.2021
she was posted as the DCM, office of the SDM, Udaipur,
Gomati and on the date the Woman Inspector of Police
namely Mina Debbarma had seized one gray colour T-shirt
by preparing seizure memo wherein she put her signature.
She identified her signature marked as Exbt.P-51/1. She
also put another signature in the same copy of seizure
memo dated 28.12.2021. The seizure memo was marked as
Exbt.P-50.
During cross-examination she stated that for
performing field duty the concerned SDM passing order to
the subordinate officer and on that date for her performance
the SDM, Udaipur also passed an order in this regard. But
the IO did not seize such order from her. She put her
signature in the seizure memo after being produced by the
IO of the same in her office i.e. at SDM, Udaipur. Nothing
more came out relevant.
47. PW-39 Goutam Dey deposed that on 28.12.2021
he was performing his duty as a PLV under the DLSA,
Gomati in the RK Pur PS and on that date the Woman
Inspector of Police namely Mina Debbarma had seized one
gray colour T-shirt by preparing seizure memo wherein he
put his signature. He identified his signature marked as
Exbt.P-51/2. He also put another signature in the same
copy of seizure memo dated 28.12.2021. Nothing more
came out relevant during cross-examination.
48. PW-40, Alpana Sarkar deposed that on
25.11.2021 she was posted being the O/C of R.K. Pur
Women PS, Gomati District, Udaipur and on that date she
received an ejahar from the O/C of R.K. Pur PS vide GDE
No.25 dated 25.11.2021 on being forwarded to the O/C of
R.K. Pur Women PS as the offence revealed was a crime
against woman. After receiving the same she registered a
case vide RKP Women PS 2021WRP0077 dated 25.11.2021
under Section 376D of IPC and endorsed the same for its
investigation to the WSI of police namely Sumitra Kapali.
She identified the receipt and registration of ejahar marked
as Exbt.P-11/3. The printed FIR format also been filled up
by her containing the endorsement to the WSI of Police
Sumitra Kapali. She identified the printed FIR format in 3
sheets marked as Exbt.P-60 (as a whole).
49. PW-41, Sumitra Kapali deposed that on
20.11.2021 she was posted in the R.K. Pur Women PS being
the SI of police. On that date in the early morning at around
4.30/5.00 am she received a call from the Duty Officer of
R.K. Pur PS for recovery of the victim from Tepania area.
Then she proceeded along with her staff and other staff of
R.K. Pur PS towards Tepania area. After crossing the
Tepania District Hospital they recovered the victim from the
main road and she could see severe injuries on her different
parts of the body. Then the victim was taken to R.K. Pur
Women PS and sent her for medical examination to TSSD
Hospital, Udaipur. She also recorded the statement of victim
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. at Women PS. All the above
performance was done by her in connection with R.K. Pur
PS case No.179/2021. On 25.11.2021 at around 2032 hours
she received the case record in connection with
2021WRP077 under Section 376D of IPC for its investigation
on being endorsed by the O/C of R.K. PUr Women PS along
with the ejahar of victim and seizure memo as forwarded by
the O/C of Radhapur PS. On 26.11.2021 she had recorded
the statements of victim, her husband and father-in-law
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On 29.11.2021 she arranged
for recording of statement of victim by the Ld. Magistrate
under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. and after that visited the PO
by preparing hand Sketch map with separate index. She
identified the hand sketch map and index which are marked
as Exbt.P-61 and Exbt.P-62 respectively. On 27.11.2021
she made a prayer before the Ld. Court for showing arrest
of three accused persons namely Tajul Islam, Saddam
Husseing and Rabban Ali in connection with R.K. Pur Women
PS case No.077 of 2021. On 30.11.2021 she had send the
seized vaginal swab, blood etc. for forensic examination. On
05.12.2021 she received the medical report from the
Kherengbari Hospital, Khumulung. On 05.12.2021 she
handed over the case docket to the Inspector of Police
namely Smt. Mina Debbarma of Crime Branch, Tripura
Police, Agartala.
During cross-examination she stated that she
recorded the first statement of victim under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. On 20.11.2021 perhaps after the medical
examination of victim, but at this moment she could not
recollect the exact time of recording her statement. She has
sent the victim after the recovery for medical examination
to TSSD Hospital. At that time she was not the I.O. In the
first statement recorded on 20.11.2021 the victim disclosed
no incident of rape upon her and she recorded the same at
R.K. Pur Women PS though she mentioned the camp at R.K.
Pur PS. The distance between R.K. Pur PS and Women PS
could be 100/50 meters away approximately. Further the
WV that she had conducted several investigations in respect
of crime against women specifically in sexual assault cases.
She was instructed by the then O/C namely Debabrata
Biswas to record the statement of victim under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. as there was no female officer in the R.K. Pur PS.
She was also instructed by him to make a formal prayer for
the medical examination of victim by any Medical Officer at
TSSD Hospital, Udaipur, Gomati.
50. These are the synopsis of the evidence on record
of the prosecution in respect of determination of the points
framed by the Learned court below. At the time of hearing
of argument Learned Senior Counsel Mr. P.K. Biswas
assisted by Mr. P. Majumder, Learned counsel submitted
before the court that the prosecution before the case at
hand failed to prove the charge of committing rape by the
convict appellant to the victim on the alleged date because
the prosecution in this case could not adduce any
independent eye witness to sustain the charge against the
convict appellants rather Learned Senior counsel submitted
that from the evidence on record only the charge of
committing dacoity may be inferred. Learned Senior counsel
further submitted that since the prosecution has failed to
prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellants. So he urged for interference by this court and
prayed for acquitting the appellants from the charge of this
case.
51. Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel at the very
outset reiterating the same submission made by Learned
Senior counsel Mr. P.K. Biswas submitted that in this case
prosecution has failed to prove the FIR on the basis of which
the prosecution was set into motion. So in absence of proof
of FIR there was no scope to presume the convict appellants
to be guilty. Furthermore, the statement of the victim
suffers from various infirmities which the prosecution has
failed to explain. Most of the witnesses specifically the
informant and the victim during their examination made
improved version before the court i.e. the statements first
time they made before the court and on the basis of that
there was no scope to take any adverse presumption of guilt
against the appellants. So as per law for non-explanation of
the improved version of evidence the convict-appellants are
entitled to get the benefit of doubt in this case.
Furthermore, the TI parade was conducted not accordance
with the established procedure of law. So due to the
infirmity in the evidence on record there is no scope to
affirm the conviction and according to Learned counsel the
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against
the convict-appellants and urged for acquitting the
appellants from the charge of the case. Mr. Bhattacharjee,
Learned counsel further submitted that from the evidence
on record it appears that the alleged victim undergo
treatment at Khumulung but why she did not divulge the
fact to anybody soon after the incident no explanation was
given in this regard by the prosecution and furthermore why
inspite of undergoing treatment at Udaipur she went to
Khumulung there is also no explanation in this regard from
the side of the prosecution for which a doubt creates about
the genuineness of the prosecution story.
52. Another Learned Senior counsel Mr. T. D.
Majumder assisted by Mr. T. Halam, Learned counsel
representing the appellants namely Saddam Hussein and
Rabban Ali submitted that there is no evidence on record
against his clients. But the Learned court below on the basis
of such omnibus statements in absence of clear and cogent
evidence on record convicted the appellants without any
basis. So Learned Senior counsel Mr. Majumder urged for
acquitting the appellants from the charge in this case.
53. Learned Senior counsel Mr. P.K. Biswas referred
few citations in support of his contention which would be
discussed in due course of time.
54. On the other hand, Learned PP Mr. Raju Datta
representing the prosecution submitted that in this case
except the informant and the victim there is/are no other
eye witnesses who had the occasion to see the alleged
occurrence of offence and the evidence of informant and the
victim is so trustworthy that there is no room to disbelieve
their evidence and furthermore, the convict-appellants by
the trend of cross-examination could not raise any ground
to disbelieve the evidence of the informant as well as the
victim. Even by the trend of cross-examination the convict-
appellants could not unshake the evidence on record and
the other witnesses of the prosecution. So according to
Learned PP the Learned Trial court below rightly and
reasonably after elaborate discussions of the evidence on
record found the appellants to be guilty and urged before
the court to uphold the sentence and order of conviction
awarded by the Learned court below. He also referred few
citations. Learned PP further submitted that the allegation
against the appellants were so serious and heinous that
there is no scope to show any lenient view to them and
submitted that the prosecution case is well proved against
the appellants and as such the present appellants deserves
punishment and urged for upholding the sentence awarded
by the Learned court below.
55. We have heard detailed submission of Learned
counsels of the appellants as well as Learned PP
representing the state-respondents and also gone through
the record of the Learned court below. To substantiate the
charge as already stated prosecution has adduced in total
forty one numbers of witnesses. The synopsis of the
evidence on record of the prosecution is already discussed
above. In this case excepting the victim and her husband no
other witnesses were present at the time of alleged
occurrence. PW-1 is the informant and PW-2 is the victim of
this case. They in course of their examination narrated the
entire incident as to how the accused persons have
committed the offence. The appellants by the trend of
cross-examination could not raise any circumstances to
disbelieve their evidence. Similarly, PW-3 is the father of
the informant and PW-4 is the mother of the informant as
well as mother-in-law of the victim. The informant and
victim after lodging of the FIR after returning back to home
narrated the entire prosecution story to them. The accused
persons by the trend of cross-examination also could not
discard their evidence. Similarly, PW-5 is the elder brother
of the victim. He also supported the prosecution story. The
accused persons also in course of cross-examination could
not raise any circumstances to disbelieve his evidence. He
met the informant and the victim when they were
proceeding towards the Rash Mela on the relevant date and
on the following day being informed by the mother of the
informant he could know the entire evidence. Similarly, PW-
6 is the Forest Guard to whom the victim met on the
following day of the alleged occurrence of offence. She also
supported the version of the informant and found injury
marks on the body of the victim. Similarly PW-7 who
escorted the victim by his scooty on the following day of the
incident and gave lift to her towards Bagma Hospital
Chowmuhani also found injury on the person of the victim.
PW-8 is the seizure list witness. PW-9 also another seizure
list witness in whose presence some articles were seized by
I.O. from the P.O. PW-10 is a Staff Nurse of TSSD Hospital.
She is also another seizure list witness in whose presence
the blood sample of the victim was seized by I.O. PW-11 Dr.
Aniruddha Roy examined the victim in connection with R.K.
Pur Women PS GDE No.09 dated 20.11.2021. After
examination he found some injury on the person of the
victim. During his cross nothing came out relevant. PW-12
is the seizure list witness. PW-13 is another seizure list
witness in whose presence the police seized the Maruti Alto
Car and took his signature. PW-14 is another seizure list
witness being police personnel in whose presence Smt. Mina
Debbarma, Inspector of Crime Branch seized dry leaves, soil
at Udaipur Smritivan. PW-15, Dr. Munmun Debbarma
examined the victim along with two other doctors on
13.12.2021 and after examination she gave the findings and
she opined that apart from injuries as mentioned in the
report they also found signs of forceful sexual intercourse
upon the victim. Similarly, PW-16, Dr. Pradipta Narayan
Chakraborty and PW-17 Dr. Madhumita Roy also deposed in
the same manner like PW-15 and they reiterated the same
story before the court and identified the injury report and
they also opined that there were signs of forceful sexual
intercourse upon the victim. PW-18, Haradhan
Bhattacharjee is another seizure list witness in whose
presence Darogababu seized one black colour money bag,
election ID card, PAN card, Debit card etc. of the informant
and he identified his signature. PW-19 was performing duty
of night shift at Tepania District Hospital. On that day he
met the informant when informant narrated the entire story
and after that he informed the matter to the R.K. Pur PS
and District Control Room. PW-20 deposed that on
12.12.2021 he was posted as the Senior Scientific Assistant
and on that day he visited the P.O. and gave his finding
about the P.O. and also he examined the victim and gave
his report. PW-21 Smti Purabi Jamatia as a Head Clerk did
the job of interpreter at the time of recording the statement
of the victim as per direction of the concerned Judicial
Magistrate. PW-22, Dr. Sujit Chakma deposed that on
25.11.2021 he examined the victim with the history of
physical and sexual assault happened on 19.11.2021. PW-
23, Dr. Subhankar Nath examined the seized exhibits and
he gave his report. During his cross-examination nothing
came out relevant. PW-24 Debjani Majumder, J.M. 1st Class,
Udaipur who conducted the TI parade and submitted her
report. Similarly PW-25, Sabyasachi Nath, a Senior
Scientific Officer was posted in the SFSL, Narsingarh,
Agartala also examined some exhibits and gave his report.
PW-26, Dr. Narenjit Das examined the informant. According
to him the informant sustained contusion injury on his neck
and he identified his report marked Exbt.P-30. PW-27,
Jayanta Das was posted as Radhapur PS as I/C Inspector on
24.11.2021. On that day he also received another FIR of the
victim at Radhapur PS and identified his endorsement. PW-
28 Dr. Jayashri Debbarma conducted potency test of the
accused persons and according to her there was nothing to
suggest that the accused persons were incapable of
performing sexual acts. PW-29 is another seizure list
witness in whose presence the blood samples were collected
by I.O. PW-30 also examined the victim. On examination he
found multiple bite marks were present over both nipples.
On systemic examination he found multiple abrasion
present over inner aspect of thigh and gluteal region. On
pre-vaginal examination he found healed hymen. On
18.12.2021 he submitted his final opinion wherein he
opined that there was evidence of vaginal penetration by
adult penis or penis sized object. He deposed that although
the vaginal swab analysis report is negative for the
presence of spermatozoa of human origin, however
possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. PW-31,
Archana Reang posted as the J.M. 1st Class, Court No.2,
Udaipur Gomati on 26.11.2021 and on that day she
conducted the TI Parade in connection with R.K. Pur PS
Case No.2021/RKP/179 and she identified her report as
made by her. PW-32 narrated that on 20.11.2021 he was
posted as SI of Police of R.K. Pur PS and on that day at
around 0320 hours the Duty Officer of R.K. Pur PS namely
ASI Prabir Chanda received an information by telephone
from the police guard of Gomati District Hospital, Tepania
that one Rana Bahadur Jamatia came there and informed
that on that night at around 0300 hours some unknown
persons kidnapped his wife by one silver colour Alto 800
vehicle from Tepania area near Eco Park and that time those
miscreants assaulted said Rana Bahadur Jamatia and his
wife and he immediately rushed to TSSD Hospital after
entering the fact in the GD and he narrated how the victim
was recovered and he also visited the P.O. and also seized
some materials. PW-33, Smti Mina Debbarma was posted in
the Crime Branch of Tripura Police, Police Head Quarter,
Agartala on 05.12.2021 and on that day she received the
case docket of R.K. Pur Women PS vide No.2021/WRP/077.
After that she recorded some statements and also examined
some witnesses. PW-34, Rajarshi Chakraborty, J.M. 1st
Class, Udaipur recorded the statement under Section 164(5)
of Cr.P.C and he identified the statement of the victim and
also identified his signature. PW-35 is the last I.O. who after
completion of the investigation laid chargesheet against all
the accused persons. PW-36, Dr. Ajitesh Paul being the
Scientific Officer-cum-Asstt. Chemical Examiner, SFSL,
Narsingarh, Agartala submitted report after examination of
the soil and he identified his report. PW-37, Dr. Uma
Debbarma deposed that on 20.12.2021 she was posted as
Medical Officer in the TSSD Hospital, Udaipur and on that
day blood sample of the victim was collected in connection
with R.K. Pur PS case No.2021/WRP/0077 and she identified
her report. PW-38, DCM attached to the office of the SDM,
Udaipur Gomati deposed that on 28.12.2021 the Women
Inspector of Police Mina Debbarma had seized one gray
colour T-shirt by preparing seizure memo wherein she put
her signature and identified her signature marked as Exbt.P-
51/1. PW-39 is a PLV under the DLSA Gomati who also was
a seizure list witness in whose presence the I.O. seized one
gray colour T-shirt by preparing seizure memo. PW-40
deposed that on 25.11.2021 being the OC of R.K. Pur
Women PS she received an ejahar and entered the same
vide GD entry No.25 dated 25.11.2021 and thereafter she
registered R.K. Pur Women PS Case No.2021WRP077 under
Section 376D of IPC and she identified the printed FIR
Format and identified her signature on the margin of ejahar.
PW-41 Sumitra Kapali deposed that on 20.11.2021 in the
morning at around 4.30/5.00 am after receiving a call from
Duty Officer of R.K. Pur PS she proceeded towards Tepania
area along with staff when she recovered the victim from
the main road and she found severe injuries on different
parts of her body. After that the victim was brought to R.K.
Pur Women PS and after that she was sent to TSSD
Hospital, Udaipur for medical examination and recorded the
statement of the victim.
56. All those witnesses were thoroughly cross-
examined by the appellants-accused but their evidence
could not be shattered at any length by the accused
persons. From the evidence on record it appears that just
8/9 days back prior to the date of alleged occurrence of
offence the victim got married with the informant. Her
condition was so critical with pain that due to social stigma
she could not divulge those facts just after the incident to
any person even to the police station also. After returning
back to home when her family members noticed her injuries
that time she had divulged everything to her husband and
in laws. She went to TSSD Hospital but considering the
crowd she could not take admission therein. After that she
went to Khumulung Hospital wherein she narrated
everything to the police and her FIR was also lodged and
finally she was sent to AGMC & GBP Hospital where a team
of three doctors examined her and finally they opined that
there were signs of forceful sexual intercourse upon the
victim. In course of hearing of argument Learned counsels
for the accused appellants tried to draw the attention of the
court that there was delay in lodging the FIR. So the
prosecution story was not true. Even the allegation of rape
could not be proved. But after going through the entire
evidence on record it appears that the witnesses of the
prosecution specifically PWs-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in course
of their examination deposed in such a manner that there
was no room to disbelieve their evidence. Learned court
below after elaborate discussion of the evidence on record
came to the observation that the appellants committed the
crime on the date as alleged.
57. In course of hearing Learned Senior counsel Mr.
P.K. Biswas referred some citations. In State of Karnataka
vs. Venkatesh and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 539 Hon‟ble the Supreme Court in para No.3 observed
as under:
"3. We have perused the evidence of all the witnesses referred
to above. They do not inspire any confidence at all. The denial
by PW 23, Madadevamma, of having had any illicit intimacy with
the deceased coupled with the fact that PW 15, Cheluvamma,
the ace witness of the prosecution, having not disclosed the
information at the earliest opportunity to anyone till November
10, 1978, has created serious doubts about the genuineness of
the prosecution case. Since, the Sub-Inspector admitted that he
had not even visited the house of any one of the accused-
respondents on November 9, 1978 to arrest them, the failure of
the accused-respondents to appear before the police cannot
give rise to any inference of their guilt and therefore the alleged
circumstance of absconding was not rightly used by the learned
Sessions Judge against the accused-respondents. The conduct
of PW 8, Madaiah, PW 14, Javariah, and PW 25, Cheluvaraju, is
so unnatural that it would not be safe to place any reliance on
their testimony. No explanation, much less a satisfactory one,
has been given by the prosecution for their long silence."
Referring the same Learned Senior counsel
submitted that there was delay in lodging the FIR, which the
prosecution has failed to explain in this case.
58. In State of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda
Nanda reported in AIR 1976 SC 2488, in para No.2
Hon‟ble the Apex Court observed that:
"2. The entire prosecution case against the respondent rests on
the oral evidence of Chanchala (PW. 6) who claimed to be an
eye-witness to the murder of Hrudananda, one of the six
persons alleged to have been killed by the respondent. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge believed her evidence, but
the High Court found it difficult to accept her testimony. The
High Court has given cogent reasons for rejecting her evidence
and we find ourselves completely in agreement with those
reasons. We have carefully gone through the evidence of this
witness, but we do not think we can place any reliance on it for
the purpose of founding the conviction of the respondent. The
evidence suffers from serious infirmities which have been
discussed in detail by the High Court. It is not necessary to
reiterate them, but it will be sufficient if we refer only to one
infirmity which, in our opinion, is of the most serious character.
Though according to this witness, she saw the murderous
assault on Hrudananda by the respondent and she also saw the
respondent coming out of the adjoining house of Nityananda
where the rest of the murders were committed, she did not
mention the name of the respondent as the assailant for a day
and a half. The murders were committed in the night of 13th
June, 1969 and yet she did not come out with the name of the
respondent until the morning of 15th June, 1969. It is not
possible to accept the explanation sought to be given on behalf
of the prosecution that she did not disclose the name of the
respondent as the assailant earlier than 15th June, 1969 on
account of fear of the respondent. There could be no question of
any fear from the respondent because in the first place, the
respondent was not known to be a gangster or a confirmed
criminal about whom people would be afraid, secondly, the
police had already arrived at the scene and they were stationed
in the Club House which was just opposite to the house of the
witness and thirdly, A.S.I. Madan Das was her nephew and he
had come to the village in connection with the case and had also
visited her house on 14th June, 1969. It is indeed difficult to
believe that this witness should not have disclosed the name of
the respondent to the police or even to A.S.I. Madan Das and
should have waited till the rooming of 15th June, 1969 for
giving out the name of the respondent. This is a very serious
infirmity which destroys the credibility of the evidence of
witness. The High Court has also given various other reasons for
rejecting her testimony and most of these reasons are, in our
opinion, valid and cogent. If the evidence of this witness is
rejected as untrustworthy, nothing survives of the prosecution
case."
Referring the same Learned Senior counsel
submitted that the evidence of prosecution specifically the
evidence of the victim and her husband are found suffers
from various infirmities and there is no scope to place any
reliance upon their evidence and prayed for acquittal of the
accused appellants.
59. In Satyapal vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 635 Hon‟ble the Supreme Court observed in
para No.21 as under:
"21. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that
ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to
get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the
First Information Report in a case of this nature is a
normal phenomenon. Both the courts below apart from
relying on a part of the testimony of the prosecutrix
found the evidence of PW-5 to be absolutely reliable. The
medical evidence itself being a part of the evidence is
required to be appreciated in the context of ocular
evidence and other circumstances surrounding thereto.
There was some time gap between the occurrence and
the examination of the witnesses. Some lapse of
memory on the part of the child witness, therefore, is
possible."
Referring the same Learned Senior counsel
submitted that in this case the TI Parade was not conducted
properly and the entire proceeding of TI Parade was not in
accordance with law.
60. In Durbal vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011
CRI.L. J. 1106, Hon‟ble the Apex court observed in para
No.15 as under:
"15. It is also required to note that all the eyewitnesses
had stated in their evidence that lantern was burning in
the verandah and Kaldhari (PW 1), Sheo Kumar (PW 2)
and Sonai (PW 3) were having torch lights in their hands
and only with the help of the lantern and the torch lights
they could recognize and identify the assailants. The
lantern and the torch lights though were alleged to have
been seized vide seizure mahazar Exts. Ka-2 and Ka-3
respectively, were not produced in the Court. The
seizure memos Ext. Ka-2 and Ka-3 did not contain the
crime number and other recovery particulars. In the
circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful as to whether
those torch lights and lantern were actually seized
during the course of investigation by the Investigating
Officer. The Investigating Officer (PW 8) did not explain
as to why the crime number was not noted on Ext. Ka-2
and Ka-3 and as to why the material objects if at all
seized, were not produced in the Court. The very fact
that the lantern and torch lights were pressed into
service for the purpose of identifying the accused, itself
suggests that it was a pitched dark night during the mid
winter and it was not possible to identify the assailants
without the aid of lantern and torch lights. It is highly
doubtful as to whether PWs 1, 2 and 3 had actually torch
lights in their hands as stated by them, in the absence of
their recovery details in the seizure memo and their not
production before the Court. Moreover, Kaldhari (PW 1)
refused to state as to whether the assailants were
covering their faces with chadar. His evidence does not
inspire any confidence."
Referring the same Learned Senior counsel
submitted that in this case the prosecution could not satisfy
the court how the victim and her husband could identify the
present appellants as the alleged accused persons on the
day of commission of offence. No explanation in this regard
was made by the prosecution.
61. In Jayanta Kalai & Ors. vs. State of Tripura
reported in 2013 (2) GLT 450, the Agartala Bench of
Gauhati High Court in para Nos.24 and 54 observed as
under:
"(24) Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants
further pointed out that the T. I. Parade as conducted for
establishing the identification of the offenders cannot be
accepted as from the examination-in-chief of the
prosecutrix (P. W. 2) it appears that she stated that she
had seen the accused persons in the police station and
she had also shown the persons in the jail. She further
admitted that "it is true that they had shown the
miscreants in the jail according to the showing of the
police officer in the police station and other prosecutrix
(P. W. 5) was with her on all the dates when she went to
the police station." But in the examination-in-chief the
prosecutrix (P. W. 2) categorically stated that five
miscreants committed rape on her. Mr. Biswas further
stated that the T. I. Parade, as conducted, was full of
flaws, in breach of the procedure guaranteeing
assurance from the outcome of the T. I. Parade. Learned
counsel drawing attention of this Court to the statement
of the P. W. 15, Sri T. C. Roy Bhowmik, Judicial
Magistrate, who conducted the T. I. Parade, stated that
the said witness had candidly admitted in the cross-
examination that he had not mentioned in the order
sheet dated 03. 07. 2003 as regards the circumstances
of identification of the suspects by the witness though
he had mentioned it in the printed T. I. Parade Form. He
further admitted that he had not brought any person
from koloi community to mix up the suspects of Koloi
community before holding the T. I. parade. Mr. Biswas
ultimately submitted that the judgment of conviction is
liable to be interfered with for the reason that there is
no legal evidence against the appellants and their
identification as accepted by the Court is shrouded by
serious doubt. As such the appellants are entitled to
benefits.
54. P.W. 2 also stated that four miscreants are present
in the Court and identified. However, she denied to
identify the three persons in the dock, who were
identified during test identification parade. But she made
a statement which is fatal for the prosecution case so far
it relates to identification of the offenders. She stated in
the cross-examination that "I have seen the accused
persons in the P.S. and I have shown these persons in
the jail". Even though the statement has not been
confirmed by PW.5 and PW. 16. But it generated two
versions in the prosecution case. She further stated that
it is true that we have shown the miscreants in the jail
according to showing of the police officer in the P.S. She
further stated PW. 5 accompanied her whenever she
visited the police station. In view of this, the purpose of
test identification parade has been debased. Therefore,
it would not be safe on the basis of such identification to
affirm the finding of conviction against the appellant
Nos. 1, 3 and 4 inasmuch as P.W. 16 did not disclose
anything how and in what manner the appellant Nos. 1,
3 and 4 were arrested for their involvement in the
offence. So far the appellant No. 5 is concerned, he was
identified in the dock after lapse of about 3 years from
the date of occurrence first time in the dock. Such
identification as well cannot be made the basis of
returning the finding of conviction in consideration of
time and place of occurrence."
Referring the same Learned Senior counsel
further submitted that in this case the prosecution failed to
prove the proceeding of TI Parade, as to how the victim and
her husband could identify the accused appellant to
substantiate the charge against the present appellants of
this case. Because in absence of clear evidence on record
regarding identification of the alleged accused persons there
was no scope to convict the appellant but the Learned court
below in absence of such evidence failed to appreciate the
evidence on record properly and convicted the appellants for
which the interference of the court is required and finally
Learned Senior counsel along with other counsels
representing the appellants submitted that the prosecution
case suffers from various infirmities and on the face of
evidence on record there was no scope to presume the
appellants to be guilty and prayed for allowing the appeal by
setting aside the judgment of the Learned court below.
62. In course of hearing of argument Learned Senior
counsel for the appellants although submitted that in this
case prosecution could not give any explanation as to why
the victim inspite of taking admission in TSSD Hospital,
Udaipur went to Khumulung for her medical examination in
this regard due explanation is given by the prosecution in
course of hearing of argument that she was newly married
and after attending PS on the alleged day she returned back
to her home and at the time of her bath her family
members noticed severe injuries on her persons and being
enquired she had divulged those facts to her family
members and ultimately she went to consult a Doctor at
Udaipur Hospital but showing crowd therein she went to
Khumulung Hospital. It is on record that the victim was
newly married. May be because of mental trauma and
shame she could not divulge the fact of such barbarous act
by the appellants being a rustic lady. So the argument of
Learned Senior counsel that the evidence of victim suffers
from infirmity cannot be accepted.
63. Per contra, Learned PP representing the State
prosecution in course of hearing referred some citation as
already discussed above. In Santosh Kumar vs. State of
M.P. reported in (2006) 10 SCC 595 in para No.11 Hon‟ble
the Supreme Court observed as under:
"11. The medical examination report of the victim shows
that she received injuries on front portion of the body
and also on her hands. The mere fact that no injuries
were found on private parts of her body cannot be a
ground to hold that no rape was committed upon her or
that the entire prosecution story is false. It may be
noted that Halki Bai is a married grown up lady and in
such circumstances the absence of injuries on her
private parts is not of much significance."
Referring the same Learned PP submitted before
the court that from the total facts and circumstances of the
case there was no scope to disbelieve the evidence on
record of the victim and there was no scope to disbelieve
the medical injury report of the victim examined by the
three doctors and there is clear evidence of forceful sexual
intercourse upon the victim by the present appellants. So
Learned PP urged for exemplary punishment against the
appellants upholding the sentence imposed by Learned Trial
court below.
64. In State of Chhattisgarh vs. Derha reported in
(2004) 9 SCC 699 Hon‟ble the Apex court in para-7
observed as under:
"7. We have noticed the fact that there has been some
delay in filing the complaint which according to us has
been explained by PW-1, the mother. The fact that their
father was out of station on the date of occurrence is not
disputed. In such circumstances since it is a minor who
was violated, the possibility of there being hesitation on
the part of mother to lodge a complaint cannot be over
ruled. Even otherwise the mere factum of delay in filing
complaint in regard to an offence of this nature by itself
would not be fatal so as to vitiate the prosecution case.
The fact that the accused did not suffer any injury on his
private part also will not be of much help to him because
he was medically examined 4 days after the incident in
question. For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied
that the High Court was in error in taking a view
different from that of the trial court and acquitting the
accused."
Referring the same Learned PP submitted that
although there were two FIRs in this case. One was made
by the informant after the occurrence and another was
lodged by the victim at Khumulung Hospital and later on,
both the FIR clubbed together and from the contents of the
FIR and the coroborrative statement of the informant and
victim there was no scope to disbelieve the evidence on
record of the informant i.e. the victim of this case and more
so, the accused appellants as already stated by the trend of
cross-examination could not raise any doubt or cloud to
disbelieve their evidence. So according to Learned PP, the
Learned court below after elaborate discussions of the
evidence on record has rightly found the appellants to be
guilty and convicted them accordingly and there was no
scope to interfere with the judgment awarded by the
Learned court below.
65. In Birbal Nath vs. State of Rajasthan and
Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1396 Hon‟ble the
Apex court observed in para No.20 and 21 as under:
"20. No doubt statement given before police during
investigation under Section 161 are "previous
statements" under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and
therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But
this is only for a limited purpose, to "contradict" such a
witness. Even if the defence is successful in
contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that
the contradiction in her two statements would result in
totally discrediting this witness. It is here that we feel
that the learned judges of the High Court have gone
wrong.
21. The contractions in the two statements may or may
not be sufficient to discredit a witness. Section 145 read
with Section 155 of the Evidence Act, have to be
carefully applied in a given case. One cannot lose sight
of the fact that PW-2 Rami is an injured eye witness, and
being the wife of the deceased her presence in their
agricultural field on the fateful day is natural. Her
statement in her examination in chief gives detail of the
incident and the precise role assigned to each of the
assailants. This witness was put to a lengthy cross
examination by the defence. Some discrepancies
invariably occur in such cases when we take into
account the fact that this witness is a woman who
resides in a village and is the wife of a farmer who tills
his land and raises crops by his own hands. In other
words, they are not big farmers. The rural setting, the
degree of articulation of such a witness in a Court of Law
are relevant considerations while evaluating the
credibility of such a witness. Moreover, the lengthy cross
examination of a witness may invariably result in
contradictions. But these contradictions are not always
sufficient to discredit a witness. In Rammi v.State of
M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649, this Court had held as under:
"24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it
is quite possible for him to make some
discrepancies. No true witness can possibly
escape from making some discrepant details.
Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored
can successfully make his testimony totally non-
discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it
is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a
witness are so incompatible with the credibility of
his version that the court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to
be adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the
evidence of two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic
approach for judicial scrutiny."
Referring the same Learned PP submitted that in
a criminal prosecution it cannot be expected that all the
witnesses in toto support the versions of each other because
the witnesses in course of their examination may gave
different statements because their maturity of
understanding, observance and their knowledge about the
alleged occurrence may vary from persons to persons.
66. Learned P.P. further submitted that although in
this case there are some minor improvements i.e. the
witnesses in course of their examination made some
improvements before the court and also there are some
minor contradictions, but for those improvements and minor
contradictions there was no scope to disbelieve the evidence
on record of the prosecution because the accused-
appellants as already stated inspite of thorough cross-
examination of the informant and his wife i.e. the victim
could not raise any circumstance in any manner to
disbelieve their evidence because excepting them no other
witnesses had any scope to see the occurrence and there is
no other evidence on record that some other persons were
present at that time excepting them . So Learned PP urged
for dismissal of the appeal.
67. From the aforesaid principles of law laid down by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court it appears to us that the
citations as referred by Learned Senior counsels appearing
for the appellants are not relevant for decision of this
present appeal so we do not find any scope to apply the
principle of the aforesaid citations in delivering this
judgment. On the other hand the citations as referred by
Learned PP appears to be more reasonable and appropriate
for decision of this case considering the facts and
circumstances of this case. So we have taken note of those
judgments at the time of preparation of judgment of this
appeal. As already stated in this case the evidence of victim,
her husband and her in laws and also PWs 5, 6 and 7 are so
convincing and trustworthy that there is no room to
disbelieve their evidence and for minor contradictions there
is no scope to disbelieve the prosecution story because the
appellants by the trend of cross-examination could not raise
any circumstance to believe that they have been falsely
implicated in this case. Rather from their act and conduct it
appears that on the alleged day they have committed such
heinous crime for which there is no scope to show any
mercy to them and thus in our considered opinion the
Learned court below after elaborate discussions of the
evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellants of
this case and also we do not find to scope to show any
lenient view in regard to sentence imposed by the Learned
court below.
68. In the result, the three appeals filed by the
appellants deserve no interference and accordingly stands
dismissed and rejected being devoid of merit. The judgment
and order of conviction and sentence imposed by Learned
Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in
connection with Case No. Special 01 of 2022 is hereby
upheld and accordingly it is affirmed.
Send down the LCRs along with a copy of this
judgment.
JUDGE JUDGE
MOUMIT Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
A DATTA Date: 2024.06.21
13:48:29 +05'30'
Moumita
