The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 354 of IPC in cases of outrage of modesty, emphasizing the culpable mindset of the accused and the immateriality of the victim's age in such cases.

S.C. Das, J.

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in Case No. S.T. 30 (WT/S) 2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.1. for 1 month.

The accused-appellant being felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and order of conviction and sentence preferred the present appeal on different ground.

Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik for the appellant and learned Additional P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State-respondent.

2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the houses of informant Angaraj Sarkar and the accused-appellant Ramu Das were situated adjacent to each other having common boundary at village Debnagar under P.S. Melaghar, District - West Tripura. On 15.07.2008 (Tuesday) at about 11.00 a.m., P.W. 5 Paramita Sarkar, aged about 8 years along with her younger sister (P.W. 3), (victim girl) (name kept withheld), daughters of P.Ws. 1 and 2 were playing in the courtyard of the accused near a guava tree and at that time. the accused-appellant showing ’Antra’ fruit called the victim girl in his residential hut, closed the front door, stripped off her ’jangia’ and thereafter, tried to push his penis in the female organ of the victim girl. P.W. 5 saw the incident through the backside door and immediately rushed to her parents and reported the incident to her mother and at once, her mother rushed to the house of the accused, called him and enquired about the victim girl, but the accused first denied the fact of having the victim girl inside the room and when P.W. 2, the mother of the victim girl raised hue and cry and called the neighboured, the accused opened the door and let out the victim girl from the room. P.W. 2, mother of the victim girl found the accused wearing a towel, which was not in order and also found the ’jangia’ of the victim girl was not in order. In the mean time, father of the victim girl also arrived there, who was having cut injuries in his leg and was not in a position to move freely. Other neighboured also came to whom P.W. 2 narrated the occurrence that the accused made attempt to commit rape on her minor daughter. The matter was reported to the village elders and the Panchayat and the Panchayat assuring a settlement asked the parents of the victim girl to attend a meeting after two days in the’ Anganwari Centre’ of the village and accordingly, the parents of the victim girl (P.Ws. 1 and 2) along with the girl attended the meeting, but neither the accused nor anybody from his house attended the meeting at the first instance. At about 10/11 p.m., they were called in the meeting and they denied the allegation. The parents of the victim girl was not satisfied with the outcome of the meeting and therefore, they went to other village elders seeking justice. When they failed to get justice, then P.W. 1, the father of the victim girl lodged the written FIR before the O.C. of Melaghar P.S. on 25.07.2008. Accordingly, police officer registered the case under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section376 read with Section 511 of IPC.

2.1. On commitment of the case to the Court of Session, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 376/511 of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.2. In course of trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Out of them, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the parents of the victim girl. P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. P.W. 5 is the elder sister of the victim girl, aged about 8 ye