Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
AKIL KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH, JJ.
Sri Rashida Tripura, S/o. Sri Gajendra Tripura - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl.A(J) No. 65 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2021
POCSO Act, - Section 42 - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376D, Section 302 read with Section 34 - Offence of Rape and Murder - Unknown miscreants had forcibly taken away daughter of informant to the jungle and committed rape upon her and had killed her by way of strangulation - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction under.
Finding of the Court: Section 27 can make such disclosure statement of the accused in custody admissible which leads to discovery of a material fact but by the time if such material fact is found to be self evident to the police, the disclosure statement of the accused of such material fact or object becomes inadmissible. However, this finding of us would not have any impact to our firm conclusion as emerged here-in-above that there were none but only the appellant and his associate had committed rape and killed the victim-daughter of PW-3, the complainant -facts to be discovered on the basis disclosure statements were already discovered when the police recovered the dead body of the victim in front of the local persons prior to recording of such disclosure.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Lodh, J.
Convict, Rashida Tripura has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ambassa, Dhalai Tripura in Case No. Special(POCSO) 21 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellant and the other accused-person, namely Jani @ Jane Tripura have been convicted under Section 376D of IPC and Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and thereby sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 20 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- only each with default stipulation and further to suffer R.I. for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- only each with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Prosecution case was set on motion with the registration of an FIR No.3/2014 dated 08.02.2014 on the basis of a complaint (Exbt-3) lodged by Dimsing Tripura, the father of the victim to the Officer-in-charge of Raisyabari P.S., Dhalai District. According to the said complaint (Exbt-3), his daughter aged about 12 years, at about 2.00 p.m. on 07.02.2014 went to the house of their neighbour, namely Rashida Tripura, the appellant herein for watching T.V. After watching T.V. at that house till 5.00 p.m., his daughter was found missing. Thereafter, they searched for her at different places, and on 08.02.2014 A.D. at about 7.00 a.m., he found the dead body of his daughter inside the jungle, adjacent to his village. He informed the police administration. The police went to the place of occurrence and conducted investigation. The police found strangulation marks on the neck, swollen vagina with bleeding injuries. Bleeding injuries were also detected in the lower lip of his daughter. The complainant further alleged that some unknown miscreants had forcibly taken away his daughter to the jungle and committed rape upon her and had killed her by way of strangulation. He has prayed for justice.
3. During investigation, inquest was made upon the body of the deceased victim. The appellant along with Jani Tripura were arrested by the investigating officer (I.O.), and post mortem examination over the body of the deceased was conducted. Available witnesses were examined, disclosure statements of the accused persons were recorded by the police, the wearing apparels of the victim as well as the accused persons were seized in presence of the witnesses, which were subsequently sent for forensic examination by the experts. The I.O collected the forensic reports. Recorded the statements of the scientific experts as well as the doctor who conducted post mortem examination of the victim and having found sufficient materials and evidence about the involvement of the accused persons in committing the crime, the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet.
4. The learned judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance of the offence had committed the case to the learned Special Judge, North Tripura Judicial District, Kailashahar Tripura. After receipt of the records relating to the case, Special Case No.14 of 2014 was registered in the Court of Special Judge. The learned Special Judge thereafter had framed charges against both the accused persons. The charges framed against the accused-Rashida Tripura is reproduced hereunder in verbatim:-
I, Shri G. Debnath, Special Judge, North Tripura Judicial District, Kailashahar do hereby charge you, namely, RASHIDI TRIPURA AND JHANI @ JANE TRIPURA, as follows:-
Firstly, that, both of you on 07.02.2014 at any time at Dasarai Para under Raishyabari P.S. agreed to do an illegal act, namely, murder and gang rape of the victim girl, daughter of Demsing Tripura, which is punishable with death or imprisonment of life and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that, both of you on 07.02.2014 at about 1700 hours in a jungle of Darasai para under Raishyabari P.S. in furtherance of common intentio
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on DNA profiling, circumstantial evidence, and the last-seen theory to establish the guilt of the accused in criminal cases.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and ensure the reliability and safety of evidence, failing which the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must conclusively establish guilt, and the absence of proof of the victim's life at the time of the alleged rape led to the overturning of the rape convic....
(1) Rape and murder – In view of Section 357(A), Cr.P.C., family members of deceased-victim would be entitled to compensation even though accused have been acquitted.(2) Extra-Judicial confession – C....
DNA evidence requires proper documentation and chain of custody to be admissible; conviction cannot solely rely on such evidence without corroborating proof.
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
