JUDGMENT :

Arindam Lodh, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer RI for his entire life till death along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- only for the offence committed under Section-376(2)(f) read with Section-376(2)(n) of the IPC with default stipulation.

3. Briefly stated, prosecution case is that Smti. Jugerung Reang, wife of the accused-appellant lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Anandabazar Police Station to the effect that for the last 5/6 months her husband i.e. the appellant herein, has been trying to cohabit with his own daughter namely 'X' [name is withheld] but, 'X' did not agree. So, the accused assaulted her and threatened her. The wife, the informant herein, tried to pacify her husband, but failed. On 06.04.2013 at about 12.00 hours at night, on 25.04.2013 at about 10.00 pm at night and on 01.05.2013 at about 01.00 hours at night the accused being father forcefully raped his daughter by tearing off her wearing apparels in front of the informant. When the informant raised objection, the accused assaulted the informant and also threatened to kill her. Initially, she did not disclose anything to anybody out of fear but as there was recurrence of the same, she and her daughter took shelter to a safer place out of fear of her husband.

4. On receipt of the ejahar (Exbt.1), the Officer-in-charge of Anandabazar Police Station had registered an FIR (Exbt.3) as ABR P.S. Case No. 08 of 2013 under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(n)/323 of IPC and endorsed it to S.I. Nanda Dulal Saha (PW-6) for investigation. On completion of investigation, the I/O submitted charge sheet against accused person Dhananjoy Reang under Section-376(2) (f) (i)(n)/323/506 of IPC. On receipt of charge-sheet, the case being committed, trial was commenced in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. In course of trial, prosecution side had examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses, and in his defence, the appellant had also produced 3(three) witnesses including him and introduced some documents.

5. After completion of the recording of evidences, the appellant was examined under Section-313 of Cr.P.C., where he denied the charges and the incriminating materials levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforestated. Hence, this appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis and perused the records. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had laid much emphasis on the delayed registration of the FIR i.e. after two days of the incident. He further submitted that both the wife and the daughter had a dispute with the appellant and on ill advise of one Surendra Reang, the instant FIR was lodged by the wife of the appellant (PW-4). Learned counsel further argued that the victim had failed to mention the date and time when she was raped. He further argued that in a rape case, delay to lodge the information is fatal. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel had pressed into service the following decisions: Prakash Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 1037; Kishan Chand & Others v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2008 SC 133; Anwar Hossain Maishan v. The State of Tripura, Crl. A(J) No. 31 of 2016; Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) with Hari Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21; Anjan Kumar Sarma and Others v. State of Assam reported in (2017) 14 SCC 359 and Ram Jag and Others v. The State of U.P., reported, AIR 1974 SC 606.

7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appea