TRIPURA HIGH COURT
T. Amarnath Goud and Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Sri Pintu Ghosh – Appellant
versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
Crl.A.(J) 33 of 2020
Decided on 5.1.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(f) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 118 – Rape of minor girl – Conviction and sentence – Complaint made by mother of victim on the date of incidence before police station and her evidence deposed before court, she has not shaken – Evidence given by her is affirmed – Likewise child has narrated her version and act committed by accused has been explained in due course – Even evidence of victim girl is not shaken – There is no reason to disbelieve complaint filed by mother and evidence of victim girl – There is no minimum required age of a person to legally testify in Court – Mother is a protector disciplinarian and friend of a child – Mother is also a selfless loving human who sacrifices many of her wants and needs for wants and needs of her child – Mother works hard to make sure that her child is safe equipped with knowledge skills and abilities to make it a competent human being – It is unbelievable to say that a mother would put her daughter entire life at stake by involving her in a serious matter like case at hand – Mother of victim girl would never put her daughter’s entire name, fame and even entire life at stake by giving her daughter a label of a victim of sexual assault – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the convict is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.06.2019 delivered in Sessions Trial (T-1) 31 of 2015 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 376(2)(f) of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall also suffer further simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months.
2. Genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the complaint filed by one Anju Das (PW-4) disclosing that on 10.09.2012 the informant went out of her house for performing works under REGA leaving the victim alone in her house. Around 4 pm accused (Pintu Ghosh) allured the victim on the pretext of feeding chocolate, chips etc and took the victim to his house and committed rape upon the victim therein. On hearing alarm of the victim, Smt. Manti Ghosh (PW-5) wife of elder brother of accused rescued the victim when the accused fled away.
3. Based on the said complaint dated 11.09.2012, Agartala PS case No. 246 of 2012 under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, final report was submitted in the court sending up the appellant to face the trial. The said case was registered in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala. Since the offences disclosed in the police report are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, on taking cognizance, the police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge. In due course, the case was transferred to the court of the Asst. Session Judge, Court No.1 West Tripura, Agartala, from where the case was withdrawn and made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge herein after referred to as the trial court.
4. The trial court on 15.01.2014 framed the charge against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC for committing rape upon a minor girl (the name has been withheld for protection of her identity) aged about 4 years, daughter of Sri Dilip Das of West Dukli, Kali Tilla Madhuban. The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial.
5. In order to substantiate the charge prosecution adduced 8 witnesses and introduced 9 documentary evidence including the medical examination report (Exbt-9). On completion of the recording of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 313 of the CrPC to have his say on the incriminating material those surfaced in the evidence led by the prosecution. The appellant reiterated his plea of innocence and stated the evidence as brought against him are fabricated. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial judge returned the finding of conviction by the impugned judgment having observed that from the evidence of the victim and her mother (PW4) it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that she was taken by Pintu in his house by telling that he would give her chips and chocolate etc and then the accused undressed her and inserted her penis into her vagina is also not only admissible and relevant as to the conduct of the victim girl but also constitutes corroboration of her statement being made immediately after return of PW4. As per provisions of section 157 of the Evidence Act, read with illustration (j) to section 8 of the Evidence Act.
6. The said finding of conviction has been challenged by the appellant broadly on the grounds that the said finding has emerged from improper appreciation of evidence inasmuch as appreciation has not been carried out by the established canons. It would have inferred that the prosecution story is unnatural, improbable and fabricated one. The evidence of PW-2, in particular, cannot inspire any confidence for the purpose of convicting the appellant. Thus, the charge having not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to acquittal from the charge by setting aside
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.