The central legal point established in the judgment is the influence of the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of Section 497 IPC and the requirement for sufficient evidence to prove the charges under Sections 448 and 497 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.

1. This petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2011 delivered by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 01(1) of 2010 affirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Sections 448 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC hereunder) passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom by his judgment dated 30.11.2009 in Case No. GR 62 of 2009.

2. The brief facts of this case are as under:-

The informant (name withheld to hide the identity of his wife) lodged a written complaint (FIR) with the Officer-in-Charge of Manubazar police station at Sabroom on 04.07.2009 alleging, inter alia, that at around 2 O' clock in the night on 01.07.2009 he discovered that the petitioner and his wife were engaged in "unsocial activities" in the kitchen of his house. As soon as they noticed the informant, the petitioner fled breaking open the bamboo fencing of the kitchen. He left his shoes and the napkin(gamcha) of his wearing while fleeing away. The informant reported the matter to the local police station over telephone at about 3 O' clock in the night. In the following morning, he informed the local Panchayat . A meeting was immediately convened by the Panchayat and the wife (name withheld) of the informant as well as the petitioner were called to the meeting. They confessed their guilt and assured before the Panchayat that they would not repeat the commission of such activities. But immediately after the meeting was over and the members of the Panchayat left, the accused petitioner along with his men started abusing the informant and threatened him with dire consequence. They had forcibly taken away his wife and eight years' old son to the house of the accused petitioner and warned him that in case of any police action against them, they would prosecute the informant by instituting several criminal cases against him. The informant again informed the Panchayat about the occurrence. He was then advised by the Panchayat to take resort to law. Then he lodged the FIR.

3. Based on his FIR, MNB PS case No. 33 of 2009 under Sections 448, 497 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the wife of the Informant (PW-1), petitioner Biswajit Debnath and his associates namely, Mithun Banik and Nitta Hari Banik and investigation of the case was endorsed to Sri P.K. Dey, Sub-Inspector of Police of Manubazar police station.

4. During investigation, the I.O. visited the crime scene. He had drawn up hand sketch map (Exbt. 3) with a separate index thereof (Exbt. 4) by indicating the material locations at the crime scene. Thereafter he met the material witnesses of the case including the informant, examined them and recorded their police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. His investigation revealed commission of offence punishable under Sections 448 and 497 IPC by the petitioner and commission of offence under Section 323 IPC by the wife of the informant. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet No. 30 of 2009 dated 30.08.2009 against the petitioner and the wife of the informant.

5. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom received the charge sheet and took cognizance of offence punishable under sections 448, 497 and 323 IPC and proceeded with the trial of the case.

6. At the commencement of trial the following charges were framed against the petitioner:

"That, you on 09/07/2009 at night about 2 a.m. was found inside the kitchen room of the house of Complainant and thereby committed house trespass by entering into his house i.e. in the kitchen room in order to committing the offence of adultery and that you thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

AND

That, you on the same day, at the same time, in the same place committed adultery with the wife of the complainant namely (name withheld to hide identity) knowing her to be the wife of the complainant and without the consent of the complainant a