Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Sri Anukul Chandra Nath, S/o late Ashwini Kumar Nath – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
CRL A(J) 10 OF 2018
Decided On : 08-07-2019
POCSO - Sexual Offences - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 8 - Summary: The court acquitted the accused-appellant of the charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 354 of IPC based on inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, lack of corroboration, and the possibility of the story being fabricated due to enmity. The court emphasized the need for corroboration of evidence and the importance of evaluating the credibility of child witnesses with circumspection.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellant's conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, based on a complaint filed by the father of the victim girl, alleging that the appellant had sexually assaulted his daughter. The prosecution presented testimonies and evidence, while the appellant denied the allegations and produced witnesses to prove his innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the victim girl and her brother, and noted the delay in filing the complaint. It concluded that the evidence lacked corroboration and credibility, leading to the acquittal of the accused-appellant based on the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the testimonies, the need for corroboration of evidence, and the possibility of the story being fabricated due to enmity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the credibility of child witnesses with circumspection, the need for corroboration of evidence, and the impact of enmity on the possibility of fabricating the story. It also highlighted the requirement for consistency and trustworthiness in the testimonies of witnesses.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside and quashed, and the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charges based on the benefit of doubt.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.
The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.12.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in connection with the Case No. Special (POCSO) 14 of 2016, whereby and where-under the appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and thereby sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4(four) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) and in default to pay the fine to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months.
2. On the basis of a written complaint dated 08.09.2016 lodged by one Pranath Nath, the father of the victim girl, the Officer-in-Charge of Kanchanpur Police Station had registered an FIR against the appellant herein. The complaint so lodged disclosed the fact that on 05.09.2016 both his son Sri Partha Nath and his daughter Papiya Nath went to the house of their neighbour Sri Anukul Nath, the appellant herein to watch television when Sri Anukul Nath, the appellant took his 9 year old daughter on his lap by grasping her hand and started to press her breast. The daughter felt pain and reacted when his son Partha Nath looked back at his sister asking what had happened. At that time, the accused-appellant shouted at him and said to him-“you have come to watch TV so just watch TV. What do you see there?” Then his son out of fear went on watching TV. Later on, after returning back to the home, his daughter narrated the entire incident to her mother and started crying. The complainant returned back to his home at 9:00 pm when he received the information from the mother of the victim girl.
The complainant had explained the delay in filing the ejahar at the police station that he was with the hope of meeting social justice but he did not get. Accordingly, investigation was carried on and after being satisfied with the materials prima facie, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and charge was framed under Section 354 of IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused-appellant.
3.1 In course of trial as many as 9(nine) witnesses were examined and the prosecution also introduced 6(six) documents which were marked as Exhibits. The excerpts of the statement of Sri Joggeswar Nath (P.W.4) recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was also brought on record and marked as Exbt. A.
4. On completion of trial, the accused-appellant was put under examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. where he pleaded his innocence. The accused-appellant, in this case had produced three witnesses to prove his innocence. These three witnesses are his wife namely Archana Rani Nath (D.W.1), two labours namely Sri Swapan Nath (D.W.2) and Sudip Nath (D.W.3).
5. Learned Special Judge after appreciation of the materials on record had convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforestated.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
7. The victim girl was examined as P.W.1. She in her examination-in-chief has stated that on 05.09.2016 went to the house of the appellant to watch one TV serial “Kiranmala” at that time, the appellant took her on his lap and started to press her breast. She felt pain and reacted with the incident. She has further stated that the appellant also inserted his hand inside her pant and also touched her vagina. When she raised sound, her brother (P.W.2) looked back and asked her why she was crying. At that time, the appellant threatened her brother, P.W.2 to watch TV, what for they went to his house. After returning
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
