[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Brajendra Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 27 January, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. A(J) 65 of 2024
Sri Brajendra Debbarma
son of late Agunia Debbarma
Village Champlai, P.S. Mungiakami
District- Khowai, Tripura
......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Tripura
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, Legal Aid Counsel.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP
Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment & order : 27.01.2026.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No._____________________________
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
[Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J]
[1] Heard Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
the State-respondent.
[2] This present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr. P.C against
the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2024 passed by
the learned Special Judge, Khowai Judicial District, Khowai in case No. Special
(POCSO) 09 of 2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section
42 of POCSO Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of 20 (twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand)
only and in default of payment of the same, to suffer simple imprisonment for a
term of 05(Five) months for commission of the offence punishable U/S 376AB
of the IPC and in the alternative, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
[3] The prosecution story in brief is that one Shri Buddhi Mohan
Debbarma, the informant lodged his ejahar before the OC, Mungiakami - PS,
alleging the facts that on 19.04.2021 at about 07 AM, his minor daughter aged
about 06 years, went to the house of the accused in their neighbourhood, then
he committed rape upon her by pressing her mouth. After the incident, the
minor victim returned back to her house crying and disclosed the matter to her
mother. Subsequently, the informant stated to have heard about the incident
from his wife and thereafter he asked his daughter and came to know about the
entire incident. It is also stated that police officer attended the informant's house
being informed about the incident and thereafter the written ejahar was lodged.
[4] On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered at
Mungiakami PS, vide No.2021/MGK/011 on 19.04.2021, U/S-376(2)(f) of the
IPC read with Section 04 of the POCSO Act, against the accused Brajendra
Debbarma and the same was endorsed to an SI for investigation. In course of
investigation, the IO visited the place of occurrence, prepared a hand-sketch-
map along with separate index and examined the victim girl along with other
available witnesses. It was stated that on 19.04.2021, the accused had been
arrested and forwarded before Court below and during investigation, the IO
arranged for medical examination of the victim, as well as the accused and
further seized various samples collected from their bodies including wearing
apparels of the victim for the purpose of forensic examination. It was also stated
that the IO collected all the forensic reports and medical examination reports
and on completion of investigation, he found that a prima-facie Case was well
established against the accused and hence, submitted charge-sheet bearing
no.12/2021 dt.31.07.2021, U/S- 376(2) (f) of the IPC read with Sec-4 of the
POCSO Act. Thereafter, during trial, upon consideration of the record and upon
hearing submission of both sides, initially charge was framed U/S-376(3) of the
IPC and U/S-4(2) of the POCSO Act against the accused, hearing the contents
of the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
[5] Subsequently, another charge U/S-376AB of the IPC and
alternatively, U/S-5(m) of the POCSO Act was framed against the accused and
hearing about the contents of the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. In order to prove the charges framed against the accused,
the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The accused was also
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating
materials, which appeared in the prosecution evidence against him and declined
to adduce any evidence in his favour.
[6] Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on
perusal of the material evidence on record, learned trial Court on 14.06.2024 in
case No. Special (POCSO) 09 of 2021, sentenced the accused person, appellant
herein in the following manner:
"......17. Considering the facts of the Case in hand and the loss
suffered by the victim, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a Case for
awarding maximum punishment, i.e. death sentence to the convict.
Thus, in the instant Case, finding the proposition of Law as
defined under Sec-42 of the POCSO Act, I hereby sentence the convict
Brajendra Debbarma to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20
(twenty) years and also Order him to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) and in default of payment of the same, he shall suffer simple
imprisonment for a term of 05 (five) months for commission of the offence
punishable U/S-376AB of the IPC and in the alternative, under Section-6 of
the POCSO Act.
The amount of fine, if recovered from the convict shall be
handed over to the victim / her parents as compensation......................"
[7] Aggrieved by the above-quoted sentence passed by the learned
Court below, the appellant side has preferred this present appeal seeking the
following reliefs:
"i) Admit this appeal,
ii) Call for the record,
iii) Issue notice upon the respondent; and
After hearing the parties be pleased enough to set aside the impugned
Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 14-06-2024 passed by
******* Ld. Special Judge, Khowai Judicial District, Khowai in
case No. special 09 of 2021 (POCSO) whereby and where under the
appellant has been convicted U/S 42 of POCSO Act and sentenced to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20(twenty) years and
to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand) and in defalt of
payment of the same, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a term
of 05 (five) months for commission of the offence punishable U/S
376 AB of the IPC and in the alternative, under Section 6 of the
POCSO Act. ........................"
[8] Mr. P.S. Roy, learned Legal Aid Counsel submits that learned trial
Court has erred in law and came to a wrong conclusion. He submits that P.W.
10, the informant father of the victim, deposed that he got the information from
his wife about the alleged incident and accordingly, they went to Mungiakami
P.S. wherefrom they went to Teliamura Hospital. But, the mother of the victim
deposed that her husband was not at home in the time of incident and on
coming back home, she informed him about everything, where after they took
their daughter to the hospital and then to the police station. According to the
learned Legal Aid Counsel there are some contradictions between the
statements of PW 10 and P.W. 9 and also they are not the eye witnesses. He
submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same.
[9] He further submits that P.W.5, the Senior Officer of State Forensic
Science Laboratory in his deposition stated that seminal
stain/spermatozoa/blood stain of human origin or skin/tissue/hair/epithelial
cells, etc could not be detected from any other seized sample which is the
Exhibits-4 and 4/1, respectively, but, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate
the same. It is also contended that in her cross examination PW 6 admitted that
at the time of examination of the victim, there was no fresh injury relating to
any sign of recent sexual intercourse and PW 14, during cross examination,
stated that he did not submit the report of potency test in the prescribed format.
He contends that learned Court below failed to appreciate the said facts. He,
therefore, urges this Court to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 14.06.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in case No.
Special (POCSO) 09 of 2021 and to allow the present appeal filed by the
appellant.
[10] On the contrary, Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. representing the
State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. He contends
that the observation and decision made by the learned trial Court is based upon
the evidences on record. He further submits that the opinion of the learned trial
Court is also based upon the medical reports in connection with the present case
and the same is just and proper which needs no further interference by this
Court. Stating thus, learned P.P. urges this Court to dismiss the present appeal
and to upheld the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated
14.06.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in case No. Special (POCSO) 09
of 2021.
[11] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the material
evidence on record.
[12] It is seen from record more particularly from the Aadhar card of
the victim girl that she was about 6 year old at the time of the alleged incident.
[13] In the statement of victim recorded under section 164 (5) Cr.PC,
the minor victim girl stated that she went to the house of Brajendra in the
morning to bring the seeds of corn. He was sleeping at that time. As she went
there, he woke up, though he was not sleeping. As he saw her, he got up all on a
sudden and pressed her mouth, took off her pant and committed the act with
her. She also stated that after committing the act with her, she got up from there
and left. After returning home, she disclosed the incident to her mother.
[14] It is seen from the deposition of witness No. PW 8, that the victim
girl deposed before the Court below that one day she went to the house of
Brajendra Debbarma to bring the seeds of corn. He was alone in his house.
When she entered his room he pressed her mouth and took off her panty (inner)
and penetrated his private part into her private part. After some time, he left her
go and threatened her with dire consequence if, she informed her parents. It was
also deposed by the victim girl that when she returned to her house and she felt
tremendous pain in her private part then she informed it to her mother. Her
mother asked as to why she did not inform her (mother) instantly and she told
her mother that Brajendra threatened her with dire consequence, so out of fear
she did not inform. It was further deposed that her mother took her to a doctor
and the doctor gave her medicine. She contended that earlier also she was taken
to court with her mother and she gave her statement.
[15] From the exhibit 5/1 (series) i.e. the medical examination report of
the victim girl it is revealed that the doctor in the pre-vaginal examination
opined that the hymen was torn. The doctor also opined "There is a evidence of
vaginal penetration but the final opinion can be given after getting report from
State forensic lab." Thereafter, on receipt of the final report from the State
Forensic Lab, the doctor finally opined that "Though there was no evidence of
any seminal stain/spermatozoa/blood stain, there was vaginal penetration and
hence, recent sexual intercourse could not ruled out."
[16] P.W. 5, the doctor posted at State SFL, Agartala deposed before
the trial Court that on being endorsed by other doctor, he conducted
examination on the exhibits received in sealed parcel. After examination of the
exhibited samples, PW 5 recorded his opinion in his report confirming that
spermatozoa of human origin were detected in the penile swab and under-
garment of the accused. P.W. 6, the doctor also deposed that she examined the
victim aged about 6 years and on examination, she found evidence of vaginal
penetration. The P.W. 14, the doctor deposed that he was posted as M/O at
Mungiakami PHC and he had conducted potency test of the accused and found
him to be positive to perform sexual inter-course. In cross-examination by
defence though he (P.W.14) stated that he did not submit the report of potency
test in the prescribed format, this Court opines that, due to minor procedural
discrepancy, the entire deposition of the said witness cannot be discarded.
[17] From the above discussions, it is revealed that the victim girl was
about 6 years of age at the time of alleged incident. The deposition of the minor
victim girl before the trial Court as P.W.8 and her statement made under
Section164 (5) Cr.PC, remained unshaken, and there is no serious contradiction
in her both statements. It is the general principle of law that in POCSO cases,
solely based upon the testimony of the minor victim, conviction can be formed.
Expecting any eye witness in such case would be unrealistic and unjust. As per
the medical report, the hymen of the victim girl was torn and vaginal
penetration has also been proved. The doctor also examined that spermatozoa of
human origin were detected in the penile swab and on the under-garment of the
accused. Except denying the allegations, the accused failed to explain his case
in his favour.
[18] With the above observations, we are of the opinion that there is no
scope for taking any lenient view or extending benefit of doubts in favour of the
accused-appellant. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Khowai Judicial District, Khowai in case No. Special (POCSO) 09 of 2021 and
accordingly the same is affirmed.
[19] Thus, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. As a sequel,
miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also stand closed.
[20] Send down the LCRs.
S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI Digitally signed by SABYASACHI
GHOSH
GHOSH Date: 2026.01.31 16:47:06 +05'30'
