IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In a case involving crime against women, and more so of sexual assault, statement of prosecutrix is to be considered as that of any other witness and not an accomplice to crime.
(2) In context of Indian culture, a woman-victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than falsely implicate someone, for a statement of rape is extremely humiliating experience for a woman and unless she is a victim of sexual assault, she would ordinarily not blame anyone for alleged crime.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Sanjay Karol, C.J.—The present accused-appellant stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act). In relation to an offence under IPC, he stands directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) and in default thereof, simple imprisonment for a period of 1(one) month; and in relation to an offence under POCSO Act, he stands directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7(seven) years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) and in default thereof, simple imprisonment for a period of 1(one) month.

2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 28.12.2013, the accused-appellant, forcibly took away the prosecutrix in a vehicle and made her spend the night in the house of his relative. The following day, she was taken to the forest where she was subjected to sexual assault. Finding his daughter not to return home from her private tuition, Sri Badal Das Choudhury (PW-6), father of the prosecutrix, lodged a report with the police. Soon the police traced them and custody of the daughter was handed over to her father and the accused arrested. The investigation was conducted by Inspector Narayan Chakraborty (PW-17) and S.I. Palash Datta (PW-18). Prosecutrix was got medically examined, so also the accused. Prima facie finding the accused to have committed the crime, prosecution presented the charge-sheet in the Court for trial. Significantly, prosecution arrayed friends of the accused as accomplice.

3. Accused Priyatosh Dey, Mitan Dey and Sajal Dey were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 366A read with Section 34 of IPC. Independently, accused Pramanik Dey (appellant herein) was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 366A and 376(1) of IPC, as also under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

4. To establish the said charge, prosecution examined as many as 18(eighteen) witnesses. Statement of the accusedappellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is also recorded, in which he of her own left her house. I am innocent. I did not commit rape upon her. I do not like to adduce evidence in my defence.

5. Only accused Pramanik Dey stands convicted in relation to both the offences, i.e. under Section 363 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act; and the other accused stand acquitted in relation to which State has not preferred any appeal.

6. This Court is thus called upon to examine correctness of the findings returned and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court with respect to conviction of the present appellant, Sri Pramanik Dey in case No. S.T.(T-1) 16 of 2014, titled as The State of Tripura vs. Sri Pramanik Dey & others arising out of FIR No.176/13 dated 30.12.2013 registered at Police Station Khowai under Sections 366(A)/376(2)(i)/342/109/34 IPC.

7. It is a settled principle of law that the first Court of appeal is required to examine the evidence in extensio for ascertaining as to whether the reasoning adopted and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, emanates from the record based on correct and complete appreciation of material placed by the parties. It is equally settled principle of law that the accused, unless so proven otherwise, is presumed to be innocent. It is took the defence that pressurized me to elope with her. OP equally settled principle of law that burden to establish the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution, which, under all circumstances, must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is equally settled principle of law that in a case involving crime against women, and more so of sexual assault, statement of the prosecutrix is to be considered as that of any other witness and not an accomplice to the crime. It is equally settled principle of law that conviction