The main legal point established in the judgment is the severity of the offense of rape, the essential elements of rape as defined in Section 375 and 376 of the IPC, and the need for appropriate punishment to respond to the society's cry for justice against such criminals.

Heard Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant Sri Sishu Ranjan Biswas who is in custody since the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2015. Also heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State-respondent.

2. The convict-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2015 in connection with Session Trial (NT/KMP) 59 of 2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur whereby and whereunder the convict-appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of 7(seven) years for committing offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 3(three) months. The convict-appellant was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 3342 of IPC.

3. Brief facts :

3.1 On 31.10.2010, at about 2:45 p.m., one Smt. Sefali Tulshi Das lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Ambassa Police Station stating inter alia that when she along with her husband and son went out from their house for performing their own work, their minor daughter Smt. Sarama (name changed), aged about 13 years was in their house. While she was working in the tea garden, at about 12:30 p.m., one Arjun Sarkar of her locality rushed to her and informed that one Sishu Ranjan Biswas, aged about 40 years, a neighbour was committing some immoral activities with her daughter by calling her daughter to step into his room and thereafter closed the door. She along with Dipti Deb and Minu Deb of her locality had rushed to the house of convict-appellant Sishu Ranjan. Being knocked at the door, Sishu Ranjan was not opening the door and after some time it was found that he fled away by the rear side of the room and they rescued their minor daughter. On her recovery, she disclosed that she was forcibly raped by Sishu Ranjan Biswas. She tried to protect herself but succumb to the force of Sishu Ranjan.

3.2 On the basis of the said complaint, O.C., Ambassa P.S. had registered a case bearing FIR No. 86 of 2010 on 31.10.2010. After recording FIR, the investigating officer undertook investigation, examined the witnesses and being prima facie satisfied submitted the charge-sheet. The matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge who has framed the charge as hereunder :-

CHARGE

I, Shri S.D. Purakayastha, Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur, do hereby charge you—

Sri Sishu Ranjan Biswas ….as follows :

Firstly, that you on 31.10.2010 at about 12 O’clock in the noon at your residence at Laltilla (Nalichara) under Ambassa police station wrongfully confined Smt. Ratna Tulsi Das @ Ratna Deb and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court.

Lastly, that you on the above mentioned date, time and place committed rape on Smt. Ratna Tulsi Das @ Ratna Deb and that you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal code and within the cognizance of this court.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges.”

3.3 In course of trial, as many as 17 witnesses have been examined to substantiate the charge and many documents have been exhibited. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after appreciation of evidence and materials on record has recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the accused, Sishu Ranjan Biswas as aforestated.

3.4 Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.

4. Before entering into the factual aspects of the case, I intend to recapitulate the well neigh principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheikh Shahid, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 715, wherein the larger Bench of the Court has observed thus :-