Convict vs The State Of Tripura
2026 Latest Caselaw 709 Tri

Tripura High Court

Convict vs The State Of Tripura on 18 February, 2026

Author: T. Amarnath Goud

Bench: T. Amarnath Goud

                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA
                              CRL A (J) 64 OF 2024
Sri Santa Debbarma,
S/o Shri Nandi Debbarma, village-School Para,
Manu, P.S. Manu, Dist. Dhalai Tripura.

                                                         ....Convict-Appellant.
                             Vrs.

The State of Tripura
                                                               ....Respondent.

Present:

 For the appellant              : Ms. Varsha Poddar, Advocate.
                                  Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate.

 For the respondent             : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.


 Date of hearing and            : 18.02.2026
 delivery of judgment

 Whether fit for reporting      : No


             HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
            HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

                         JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
[ T. Amarnath Goud, J]

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of CrPC

against the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated

16.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambassa, Dhalai

Judicial District in Case No.ST(T-1) 31 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the

appellant has been convicted under Section 448 of IPC and sentenced him to

suffer S.I. for 1(one) month. Further, under Section 376(1) of IPC and

sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10(ten) years along with a fine of Rs.100,000/-

(rupees one lakh) payable to the legal heirs of the deceased with default

stipulation, and also sentenced to suffer Life imprisonment for commission of

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. All the sentences were passed to

run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.07.2021, the

informant, namely, Sri Daharam Reang lodged a written ejahar before the

O.C., Manu Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on that day, at morning on

receiving information from a shop of his locality, he rushed to his house and

found the dead body of his niece, the victim, lying naked on the floor of his

room. It is alleged that he was not present at his home on that day as he and

his wife went to their Jhum field for cultivation. His old aged father-in-law

was residing with them in their house and his neice, the victim, used to look

after him staying in their house as she was deserted by her husband. The

informant later came to know that his aged father-in-law went out from the

house on the previous day of the occurrence and the victim stayed there with

Sumita, her cousin sister in that house. In the evening of fateful day, the

accused, Santa Debbarma along with another boy came to his house,

consumed liquor with his friend and thereafter they both left. But, after

sometime the accused again came back to his house and gave indecent

proposal to the victim in presence of the minor counsin sister of the victim,

but she refused to do so. The accused then threatened the minor sister of the

victim with a stick and she being scared, left the house and then taking the

advantage of loneliness, he forcibly raped and murdered her.

3. On the basis of that complaint, on 29.07.2021 a case was

registered as Manu PS Case No.32 of 2021, under Sections 448/376/302 of

IPC against the aforesaid accused person and investigation was commenced.

Finally, after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet

against accused Santa Debbarma before the learned Addl. Special Judge,

Ambassa, Dhalai Judicial District, and subsequently, learned Court below took

cognizance of the offences and framed charges against the said accused for

commission of offence under Sections 448/376/302 of IPC Act to which the

he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the charges, a total of 23 witnesses were examined by

the prosecution and proved some material documents and objects as exhibits.

5. The accused at the time of examination under Section 313 CrPC

denied the prosecution case as false claiming himself to be innocent. He also

declined to adduce any defence witness.

6. Finally, learned Court below after hearing the learned counsel of

both sides and considering the evidence on record found the accused guilty of

the offences, convicted and sentenced him under the aforesaid charges.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order of sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

8. At the time of argument, Ms. Varsha Podder, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no concrete evidence on

which learned Court below returned its findings of conviction and sentence of

the appellant because the statements made in the FIR and the statements as

deposed by the informant in his deposition do not corroborate each other.

There are serious discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses. Ms. Podder,

learned counsel draws attention to the evidence of the so called friend of the

accused, i.e. the P.W.17, who accompanied the accused at the house of the

victim where she resided. She submits that the said PW-17, the friend of the

accused did not directly state that the accused had committed rape and murder.

Finally, she argues that the learned Court below on the basis of assumption,

came to a conclusion that the accused-appellant is guilty of committing the

aforesaid offence and thus she prays for setting aside the impugned judgment

and order of conviction and sentence.

9. Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. in course of argument submits that

learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence on the testimonials of eye witnesses, i.e. PW-7, PW-

17 and other corroborative evidences which are consistent and reliable. Mr.

Datta, learned P.P. unequivocally submits that the medical evidence as well as

the evidence of Forensic Expert are very much trustworthy and reliable upon

which learned Court below has returned its findings of conviction and

sentence of the accused under the aforesaid charges. Therefore, He prays for

upholding the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as

passed by learned trial Court.

10. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the relevant

records. The most essential crux of the prosecution case depends on the entire

evidence of eye witnesses in this case. The offshoot of the evidence of these

eye witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-17 before us is that P.W.7, the cousin sister

who was all along with the victim on the fateful day deposed before the trial

Court that around one year ago (from the date of her deposition) in the

evening, on a certain day the accused Santa Rai along with another came to

their house when her parents were at the Jhum field and soon the friend of

accused left the house by boarding an auto. Thereafter the accused started

misbehaving and fighting/hitting her cousin sister (victim). She specifically

stated that the accused strangulated her cousin sister and later, the accused also

told her that he had raped and killed her victim-cousin sister.

11. Now, from the statements as deposed by PW-17 i.e. the friend of

accused, we find that he accompanied the accused Santa Debbarma to the

residence of the victim and very soon he left the place leaving Santa

Debbarma as he had some personal works.

12. Thus, the from the statements of these two vital witnesses, it has

come to light that they were very much prudent, consistent and reliable that on

the date, time and place of the occurrence, the accused Santa Debbarma was

very much present there. The PW-7, the cousin sister of the victim also

deposed that she had seen her victim sister dead and the accused had

disappeared from the place of occurrence. Both the witnesses had identified

the accused in the dock.

13. It is apparent from the deposition of the PW-7 that she was aged

about 11 years at the time of giving her deposition. Learned trial Court tested

her maturity and understandings, and certified her to be a truthful witness. So,

there is no question about her trustworthiness and her testimonials cannot be

brushed aside.

14. Now, we go through the other corroborative witnesses i.e. PW-4,

PW-5 and PW-6 who also supported the version of the prosecution story. PW-

4, Smt. Manti Laxmi Tripura deposed that she knew the victim as her co-

villager. About 11 months ago (from the date of deposition) on a certain day,

Sumita Reang (younger sister of the deceased) accompanied her to the house

of one Jayanti Bahadur. They both spent the night at the house of said Jayanti

but Sumita did not say anything that night, rather, she was looking very

scared. On the next day, Sumita told her that her elder sister was raped and

murdered by the accused Santa Debbarma.

15. Likewise, PW-5 stated that Sumita and Manti Laxmi when spent

night at her house, Sumita was looking very scared and on the following day

Sumita told them that her elder sister was raped and murdered by the accused

Santa Debbarma.

16. PW.6, the informant, very vividly and cogently stated that on the

day of incident when he returned from work, his daughter Sumita Reang was

missing. The next day, she returned home from the house of one Nepali

family. She was very scared and told him that she had run away from the

house on the day of incident under fear of accused Santa Rai Debbarma. She

narrated that accused had raped and murdered the victim in her presence on

the day of the incident. Thereafter, the informant lodged an FIR against the

accused-appellant before the OC, Manu PS. He further stated that police

seized wearing apparels of the victim from the place of occurrence in his

presence and he put his signature on the seizure list being a seizure witness.

17. So, the testimonials of these three witnesses are very reliable as

because they have corroborated the evidence of eye witnesses i.e. PW-7 and

PW-17 i.e. the chain of circumstances of the occurrence.

18. PWs-8, 9 & 10 are the witnesses to the surathal/inquest report of

the deceased. It is stated by PWs 9 and 10 in their deposition that when they

reached to the place of occurrence, they found the deceased in a naked

condition.

19. PW.11 is the aunt of the victim who stated that on being heard

the incident from Sumita Reang, she came to the place of occurrence and

found the dead body of the victim was lying in a naked condition. She covered

the dead body of the victim with a "pachra".

20. PW-12 is a seizure witness in whose presence the wearing

apparels of the victim were seized.

21. PW-13 is a lady police constable who accompanied with the S.I.

of police, namely, Abu Awal along with other staff. She stated that on

reaching the place of occurrence, she found the dead body of the deceased was

in naked condition. They recovered the dead body and sent to the Manughat

CHC for its post-mortem examination. She also translated the 161 statement

of Sumita Reang, cousin sister of the deceased, in Bengali.

22. PW-14 is a co-villager who knew both the victim and the

accused.

23. PW-15 is the Scribe of the FIR. He stated that he along with the

Executive Magistrate and other police personnel went to the place of

occurrence led by accused Santa Debbarma wherein the accused pointed out

the exact place of occurrence and narrated the incident. On that basis a

disclosure statement was prepared at the spot by the I.O. He also put his

signature in the disclosure statement. The witness identified the accused Santa

Debbarma in the dock.

24. PW.16 is a Videographer who conducted recording of

reconstruction of crime scene and disclosure statement, and preserved the

same in a pen drive.

25. PW-18 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the potency test of

the accused and submitted its report suggesting that the accused is capable of

performing sexual intercourse.

26. PW-19 being the Deputy Director, DNA Typing Division, SFSL

stated that the semen stain detected in exhibit A [source: vaginal swab of the

deceased] originated from the single source of exhibit D [source : blood

sample of the accused Santa Debbarma].

27. PW-23 deposed that he being the Executive Magistrate, posted at

Longtharai-Valley, Dhalai District went to the Manu PS and recorded the

disclosure statement of the accused Santa Debbarma in presence of OC, Manu

PS, the I.O and two other witnesses. Thereafter, this witness went to the place

of occurrence accompanied by the accused along with said police personnel

wherein the accused narrated the whole incident. The witness identified the

accused in the dock.

28. PW-20 is the Scientific Officer-cum-Asstt. Chemical Examiner

who after examination and analysis of Exhibit A (vaginal swab) opined that

"human spermatozoa" were detected in the vaginal swab of the

deceased/victim.

29. PW-21 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination

over the dead body of the deceased and deposed that the cause of death was

Hypoxia (in brain) due to asphyxia. The said doctor finally opined in the said

post-mortem report that discovery of semen in Exhibit-A (vaginal swab of the

victim) as per the FSL report, proves that recent sexual intercourse had

occurred.

30. PW-22 is the I.O. of the case who after completion of

investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant.

31. On evaluating the entire evidence, it has come to light from the

act of the accused that it was premeditated since before commission of rape

and murder, he went to the house of the victim along with his another friend

but very soon, his friend left from there leaving the accused in the house of the

victim, he offered indecent proposal to the victim, started misbehaving,

scuffling with the victim. All the incidents had occurred in presence of PW-7,

who also vividly deposed that the accused was strangulating the victim and

even the accused himself told PW-7 that he had raped and killed the victim.

Moreover, from the medical evidence as well as the evidence of Forensic

Expert, we find that presence of seminal stain and human spermatozoa on

Exhibit-A (vaginal swab of the victim) of the accused was confirmed and

therefore, sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. So, the testimony of PW-7 is

fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the confirmation of seminal

stain and human spermatozoa on the vaginal swab of the victim and the

opinion during autopsy duly proved by PW-21, leave no room for any doubt

that the accused had committed house trespass with intent to commit rape and

murder.

32. Further, from the deposition of PW-23, the DCM, we find that

the accused made a disclosure statement before him in presence of Police

officials including the IO as to how and in what manner he committed the

crime. He narrated the whole incident in front of them. The post-mortem

report confirms that the death was caused due to asphyxia and the medical

officer found ligature mark present around the neck of the deceased with

Hyoid Bone fracture. The Evidence of Dr. Papan Das, who on examination of

the accused found bite mark over his left forearm ventral area nearer to left

elbow, nail scratch near over right side of chest and near left side of back of

chest, contusion over left deltoid region and swelling over lower lip and left

side of forehead. So, these circumstantial evidence amply confirms the

evidence of eye witness i.e. PW-7 that there was scuffling in between the

accused and the victim and after fulfilling his lust, he killed the victim, which

cannot be ruled out.

33. In the entire evidence, the defence could not bring any sufficient

incriminating materials from the cross-examination of those witnesses except

some formal denial.

34. In view of the evidence of PW-7, we must say that the evidence

given by PW-7 is a solitary one and it satisfies the Court to base a conviction

solely on the testimony of this witness.

35. Having scrutinized the prosecution evidence carefully as well as

for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the learned

trial Court was wholly justified in convicting the accused under Sections

448/376(1)/302 of IPC and the sentences as awarded do not call for any

interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and is

liable to be set aside.

36. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. The impugned

judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Ambassa, Dhalai in connection with ST (T-1) 31 of 2021 is

hereby affirmed.

37. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed.

S.DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J                                                          DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J




SANJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SANJAY GHOSH
             Date: 2026.02.20 17:58:24 +05'30'


sanjay