Sri Nitesh Nath vs .
2025 Latest Caselaw 748 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Nitesh Nath vs . on 22 May, 2025

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                                 Page 1 of 5




                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                AGARTALA
                          CRL.A(J) NO.36 OF 2025

 Sri Nitesh Nath
 Vs.
 The State of Tripura.

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

 Present:
 For the Petitioner(s)           : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
                                   Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
                                   Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
                                   Mr. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
                                   Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.
                                   Mr. S.C. Majumder, Advocate.
                                   Mr. S. Debbarma, Advocate.

 For the Respondent(s)           : Mr. R. Datta, P.P.

Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.

22.05.2025

Order

The present criminal appeal has been filed under

Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(BNSS), corresponding to Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, challenging the Judgment dated 09.04.2025

passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura,

Dharmanagar, in Case No. Special (POCSO) 09 of 2024. By the said

judgment, the learned Court below convicted the appellant under

Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012,

sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 4 (four)

years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand)

only. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to

undergo further imprisonment for 6 (six) months. It was further

ordered that both sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the

prosecution, are as follows:- The case arises under the POCSO Act,

2012. As per the written ejahar dated 02.03.2024, lodged by the

informant, who is the mother of the victim girl (name withheld),

aged about 14 years and a student of Class VIII at Huplongcherra

Tea H.S. School, the incident occurred on 01.03.2024 at around

9:00 AM. In the absence of the informant, Rupali Nath, and her

husband, Amulya Nath, their neighbour, Nitesh Nath, aged about 60

years, son of late Harendra Nath, entered their house and asked

the victim for a glass of water. When the victim brought the water

and gave it to him, he drank it and, while returning the glass,

touched her cheek and breast. Out of fear, the girl raised a hue and

cry and immediately rushed to her mother, who was working at a

brick and stone chips site, and informed her of the incident. It was

further mentioned in the complaint that the matter was also

brought to the notice of the local Panchayat Pradhan. Subsequently,

on 02.03.2024, the ejahar was lodged and registered as

Dharmanagar Women P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024.

3. Upon registration of the case, investigation

commenced. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating

Officer (PW-8) submitted a charge sheet against the appellant

under Sections 354/448 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act,

2012.

4. The learned Court thereafter framed charges

under Sections 354/448 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act,

2012. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant,

to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The trial commenced, and during the course of

trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 (eight) witnesses and

exhibited relevant documents. All witnesses were duly examined

and cross-examined. The appellant was also examined under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., during which he denied the allegations

and claimed the case to be false.

6. After hearing both sides and evaluating the

evidence on record, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), North

Tripura, Dharmanagar, convicted the appellant as mentioned above.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025, the appellant has preferred

the present appeal seeking to set aside and quash the conviction

and sentence, and to suspend the operation of the said judgment.

8. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant, and Mr. R. Saha, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

9. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that a civil dispute

regarding the construction of a house on disputed land between the

parties led to this false criminal complaint. He argued that the

appellant, who is approximately 65 years old, has been falsely

implicated due to ongoing animosity. He urged the Court to take a

lenient view considering the appellant's age.

10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the appellant and contended that the impugned

Judgment and Conviction dated 09.04.2025 is just, proper, and

based on evidence, and therefore needs no interference.

11. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on

record.

12. In light of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the appellant, and taking into consideration the age of

the appellant, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view in the

matter. Accordingly, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment

awarded to the appellant is modified from 4(four) years to 3(three)

years. However, all other aspects of the impugned Judgment,

including the conviction under the relevant provisions and

imposition of fine, shall remain unaltered.

13. With the above observations and modifications,

the present appeal stands partly allowed to the extent indicated

above.