Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Govinda Debnath – Petitioner
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 68 of 2011
Decided On : 10.6.2015
Juvenile - Outraging Modesty - IPC 354, IPC 457 - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and found that while the prosecution could not prove sexual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt, the accused had applied criminal force and outraged the modesty of the victim. The court held the juveniles in conflict with law liable to be convicted under Sections 457/354 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a juvenile accused of outraging the modesty of a victim girl and house trespass. The prosecution's case was based on the victim's statement and evidence presented by witnesses and medical examination reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the prosecution could not prove sexual intercourse beyond reasonable doubt, the accused had applied criminal force and outraged the modesty of the victim. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of detention for the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the victim's statement, witness testimonies, and medical examination reports, to prove the charges of outraging modesty and house trespass against the juvenile accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of conclusive evidence for sexual intercourse but the presence of evidence supporting the application of criminal force and outrage of modesty. The court affirmed the conviction and order of detention for the accused.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition and ordered the release of the juvenile delinquent on probation under the care of his parent, with the requirement to undergo behavioural correction and submit regular reports to the Juvenile Justice Board.
1. Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who was juvenile at the time of commission of offence, of outraging the modesty of the victim girl, punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. and of the offence of house trespass, punishable under Section 457 of the I.P.C. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned P.P. appearing for the State.
2. By this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P.C., the judgment and order dated 19.08.2011 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 12 (2) of 2011 by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala has been questioned. By that judgment dated 19.08.2011, the judgment of conviction and order of detention dated 22.03.2011 delivered in Juvenile Case No. 9 of 2008 arising out of GR 38 of 2008 has been affirmed.
3. The prosecution case is rooted in the ejahar lodged by one Arati Das disclosing that while she was making ‘traditional cake’ in their house, her daughter was sleeping in a cot inside the kitchen at the dead hour of night at about 0200 hours. She found that latch of the kitchen door was opened and her daughter, whose name has been withheld for protecting her identity, was not in the kitchen. Suddenly, she heard the cry of her daughter, coming from the adjacent paddy field. She along with her husband and son rushed towards that direction and found her daughter, lying undressed in the paddy filed. Her daughter informed them that she was forcibly brought by the petitioner and one Tapan Sarkar, who gagged her mouth and thereafter, they made her naked and the petitioner attempted to rape her while Tapan caught hold of her. Thereafter, she with her son went to the house of the petitioner and Tapan and informed the matter to their house inmates but they did not get any positive response. As a result, she lodged the written ejahar to the West Agartala Women Police Station.
4. Based on the said Ejahar, West Agartala Women P.S. Case No. 13 of 2008 under Sections 376/511/34 of the I.P.C. was registered and taken up for investigation and the case was investigated by one SubInspector namely, Mamtaj Hasina (PW-10). On completion of the investigation, she filed the final police report against the petitioner under Sections 447/376 of the I.P.C. After the final police report was received by one of the Judicial Magistrates, Agartala, West Tripura, she transferred the said case to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial as both the accused persons were found to be juvenile in conflict with law by the order dated 02.02.2009. Thus, the Juvenile Justice Board took up the case for trial. During the trial, the charge under Section 457 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. and under Section 376 of the I.P.C. was framed against the juvenile offender, namely Tapan Sarkar and the charge under Sections 457/376 of the I.P.C. was framed against the petitioner. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to face the trial.
5. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 10 (ten) witnesses including the victim (PW-2), the informant (PW-1) and the investigating officer (PW-10). In addition to the oral evidence, the prosecution introduced 10 (ten) documentary evidence including the medical examination report of the victim, Exbt.10. After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the juveniles in conflict with law were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. separately. Having appreciated the evidence, the Juvenile Justice Board has observed as under:
“We have very carefully and closely scrutinized th3e evidence of those witnesses and do not find any material contradiction in respect of sleeping of victim girl in the kitchen and taking away the victim girl in the paddy filed by the accused persons. The victim girl clearly stated that the accused took her away pressing hold her mouth to the nearby paddy filed from where she raised alarm and she also stated that her parents and brother Suman arrived there. The parents and brother have also stated that they went to
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
