The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intention or knowledge of the offender is an essential ingredient of the offense under Section 354 of the IPC, and the court relied on the victim's testimony and immediate reaction to establish the guilt of the appellant.

1. This is an appeal by the convict namely, Sri Nirananda Sinha, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2014 delivered in S.T.03(NT/D) of 2013.

2. The genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the complaint filed by the victim, name withheld for purpose of protecting her identity. It had been alleged in the complaint that after her marriage with one of the co-accused, namely Hariballab Sinha she went to the house of the accused persons for leading her conjugal life but immediately after her reaching there, on such unlawful demand she was subjected to physical and mental torture. All the accused persons had committed assault on her on such unlawful demand. They used to keep her without any food and force her to work throughout the day. Her husband, one of the co-accused had gone to Aizwal. During his absence, the other accused persons continued and increased the level of torture. Those accused persons repeated their demand for ‘dowry’. Even they informed her parents. Her father came to the house of the accused persons with one of her maternal uncle. On that very night, she was assaulted by the accused persons [except her husband who was away from home]. Her father took her to her paternal house. There she stayed for 25 days and thereafter, she came back to the matrimonial house. On 02.09.2012 at about 2.30 am at night her father-in-law, the appellant herein, entered her room and forcibly undressed her by gagging her mouth by his hand. He attempted to commit rape on her. She shouted desperately when the inmates rushed, the appellant left that room. Again the appellant repeated such act on 06.09.2012 at deep at night by pressing ‘his penis into her vagina’. She raised alarm and the appellant slipped from her room. The other inmates including two accused persons did not take any action to protect her from the appellant. Finally, on 09.09.2012, her father came and took her from her matrimonial home. Damcherra Panchayet was informed about the incidents and they had convened a meeting with the accused persons but they intentionally avoided to attend that meeting. Even thereafter, the accused persons threatened her of dire consequence. Finally, on 29.09.2012 a complaint in writing [Exbt.3] was filed to the Officer-in-Charge, Damcherra P.S. which was registered as Damcherra P. S. Case No.22/2012 under Sections 498-A/34/376/511 of the IPC.

3. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against all the FIR named accused persons viz. [a] Hariballab Sinha @ Akashbabu [b] Sri Niranda @ Nirananda Sinha [c] Smt. Gukolini Sinha and [d] Sri Swarnajit Sinha @ Sunano under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and against the accused Niranda @ Nirananda Sinha under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC. After the case was committed for trial to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, in the course of time the same was transferred to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura for trial in accordance with law. The trial court framed charges separately. Against the FIR named 4(four) accused persons the charge was framed under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC whereas an additional charge was framed against the accused person, namely Niranda @ Nirananda Sinha under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded their innocence. As consequence, the trial commenced and in order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as 13[thirteen] witnesses including the victim [PW-7]. The prosecution has also introduced 6[six] documentary evidence including the written complaint [Exbt.3]. After recording of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were separately examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to have their say on the materials incriminating them. It ap