Tripura High Court
Sri Rajib Deb And Anr vs The State Of Tripura on 15 May, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL.A(J) NO.47 OF 2024
Sri Rajib Deb and anr.
...... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. R. Nath, Advocate.
Mr. C. Mog, Advocate.
Mr. P. Biswas, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Mr. R. Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 15.05.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present appeal has been filed under
Section 374 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 29.06.2024
passed by the learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Bishalgarh,
Sepahijala, in Case No. Special (POCSO) 08 of 2016, convicting
the appellants under Sections 455, 506, and 34 of IPC and also
under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, while acquitting the appellants
from the charge under Section 323 of IPC. The appellants were
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 5 years and to
pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment to suffer further
RI for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 455 of IPC
read with Section 34 of IPC. They were further sentenced to
suffer RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default
to suffer further RI for one year for the offence punishable under
Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and also sentenced to suffer
RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer
further RI for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section
506 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. One Sri Uttam Debnath lodged a written
complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Bishramganj Police
Station on 03.08.2016 at about 22:19 hours, stating that on
29.07.2016, in the afternoon at about 4:30 PM, his minor
daughter who was a student of Class 7 of Charilam Higher
Secondary School, returned home after school. While she was
having lunch alone in the house, two persons, namely Dipan Deb
and Rajib Deb, who were hiding under the cot, suddenly came
out, pressed her mouth, and assaulted her. They also tried to pull
her dress. During the assault, their faces were covered with black
cloth, but in the course of the scuffle, the cloth accidentally got
removed, allowing her to recognize the accused persons, who
then fled from the scene. While fleeing, they threatened her,
saying that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, they would kill
her family members.
Thereafter, hearing the hue and cry, adjacent
residents, namely Subal Debnath (P.W.-6) and Smt. Jyotsna
Debnath (P.W.-5), arrived at the house, by which time the
accused had already fled. The incident was brought to the notice
of the elderly persons of the village, resulting in a delay in lodging
the FIR. On the basis of the said complaint, the OC of
Bishramganj PS registered Bishramganj PS Case No. 27 of 2016
under Sections 448, 323, 354, 506, and 34 of IPC and under
Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Upon receipt of the
complaint, police took up the investigation, filed a charge sheet,
charges were framed, and the trial commenced as the appellants
pleaded not guilty. After hearing arguments, the learned Court
below passed the Judgment dated 29.06.2024 convicting the
appellants under Sections 455, 506, and 34 of IPC and under
Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and sentencing them as earlier
mentioned.
3. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the
appellants herein preferred this appeal and prayed before this
Court to set aside the impugned judgment and allow this appeal.
4. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Nath, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, as well as Mr. R. Datta, learned P.P., along with
Mr. R. Saha, learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the respondent.
5. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants, has contended that the
prosecution's case relies on the testimony of the victim (P.W.-3),
who is the only eyewitness to the alleged incident. According to
her deposition, the accused persons emerged from under the cot,
slapped her, and a scuffle ensued during which some physical
contact occurred. However, Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel
submits that such contact, if any, arose out of the struggle and
does not indicate any sexual intent, which is a necessary element
to establish an offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. It was
further argued that the prosecution failed to prove the element of
sexual intent. The learned counsel emphasized that the victim did
not specifically state which part of her body was touched or how
the alleged act amounted to sexual assault. The absence of such
detail, especially when the allegation stems from a scuffle, raises
reasonable doubt about the true nature of the contact.
Additionally, Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. counsel pointed out that the
statements of P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, who were allegedly the first
persons to arrive at the scene do not inspire confidence. Notably,
the victim and her parents did not immediately reveal the identity
of the accused persons to them, even though the accused were
known to the victim and their identities were allegedly uncovered
during the incident itself. This delayed disclosure casts serious
doubt on the reliability of the identification and raises questions
about the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. In view of the
above, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prosecution has
failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the
appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.
6. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P.,
appearing for the State-respondent, vehemently opposed the
submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and
urged this Court to uphold the impugned judgment, as the same
is just and proper.
7. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
8. Upon careful appreciation of the evidence on
record, it appears that the prosecution case mainly rests on the
testimony of P.W.-3, the victim. It is undisputed that she is the
sole eyewitness to the alleged incident. Her deposition reveals
that the accused persons allegedly came out from under the cot,
slapped her, and there was a scuffle during which they allegedly
touched her body. However, the nature of such "touching" has
not been specified with clarity. The victim did not categorically
state that the accused touched her with sexual intent. Moreover,
no specific body part was identified as being inappropriately
touched. In a scuffle, incidental or accidental contact may
happen, but to sustain a conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO
Act, the prosecution must prove that such contact was made with
clear sexual intent, which is absent in this case.
9. Further, there is inconsistency in the
prosecution's version regarding the identity of the accused. The
victim allegedly identified the accused only after the black cloth
covering their faces got removed during the scuffle. However, no
immediate disclosure of their names was made to the neighbours
(P.W.-5 and P.W.-6), which casts doubt on the veracity of the
identification.
10. Given the lack of corroborative evidence,
absence of clear sexual intent, and benefit of doubt arising from
inconsistencies and omissions, this Court is of the considered view
that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
11. Accordingly, this present appeal stands
allowed and the impugned Judgment dated 29.06.2024 is set
aside and the appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if
not required in any other case.
12. As a sequel, stay granted, if any, stands
vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.05.21
SINGHA 13:45:46 +05'30'
