Tripura High Court
Md. Kabir Hussain vs The State Of Tripura on 1 July, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A(J) NO.12 OF 2024
Md. Kabir Hussain
...... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. R. Purukayastha, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 01/07/2025.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
(DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD,J)
This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the
Cr. P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 15.07.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO),
North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in Case No. Special (POCSO) 06 of
2019, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted
under Sections 366-A/376(1) of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO
Act, and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under
Section 366-A of IPC and R.I. for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
under Section 376(1) of IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to
suffer R.I. for one year.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.09.2015
at about 12:00 hours, the appellant forcibly enticed the victim to his
house by an auto-rickshaw, confined her in his house, and
threatened the victim and her parents to marry her to the appellant.
3. Upon receipt of the complaint, the O/C of
Churaibari P.S. registered the case vide No. 2018/CRB/051 under
Sections 366-A/376(1) of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. On
completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted a
charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 366-A/376(1) of
IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. During the trial, the
prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove the charge
against the appellant. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the
appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein he
strongly denied the allegations made against him but chose not to
adduce any defence evidence.
4. After hearing the arguments from both sides, the
learned Court below, by the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 15.07.2020, convicted the appellant as stated
hereinabove.
5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.07.2020,
the appellant has preferred this appeal to set aside the impugned
judgment and order of conviction.
6. Heard Ms. R. Purukayastha, learned counsel
appearing as Legal Aid Counsel for the convict-appellant, and Mr. R.
Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-
respondent.
7. Ms. Purukayastha, learned counsel for the
appellant, submits that the FIR in connection with the present case
was filed three years after the incident. The accused took the girl
away, and thereafter, they were married according to Muslim rites
and rituals in the presence of relatives from both sides. The
marriage took place in the house of the girl's uncle. Learned counsel
further submits that the age of the girl was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
In support of her argument, learned counsel relied
upon the judgment passed by this Court dated 15.01.2021 in
Crl.(J) No. 42 of 2023 titled Matilal Sarkar vs. The State of
Tripura.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State-respondent submits that the judgment and
order of conviction passed by the Court below is just and proper
and requires no interference.
9. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
10. Having considered the submissions advanced by
Ms. Purukayastha, learned counsel for the appellant, and upon
perusal of the records, including the delay of three years in lodging
the FIR and the circumstances under which the appellant and the
alleged victim entered into marriage according to Muslim rites in the
presence of relatives from both sides, this Court is of the considered
view that the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the
appellant. Further, it is submitted at the Bar by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the girl has already married someone else a year
after the incident.
11. Accordingly, in view of the above, this present
appeal stands allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Trial Court are hereby set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The
appellant shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection
with any other case.
12. With the above observations and directions, the
present appeal stands disposed of. As a sequel, any stay granted
stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) closed.
B. PALIT, J DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
SABYASAC Digitally signed by
SABYASACHI GHOSH
HI GHOSH Date: 2025.07.02
12:24:53 +05'30'
