Back
2022 Supreme(Tri) 374
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Arindam Lodh, J.
Samir Kar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 27 of 2019
Decided On : 14-02-2022
Rajib Saha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Samrat Ghosh, Addl. P.P, for the Respondents
Conviction cannot rely solely on the victim's testimony without corroboration; discrepancies and delays in reporting create reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 342, 352, 325, 354, 354B, 149, and 498-A - Conviction of multiple accused for various offences including assault and cruelty - The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused for involvement in both physical and emotional abuse of the victim as supported by evidence, however, discrepancies in testimonies lead to doubts regarding reliability. (Paras 12-24)
(B) Conviction based largely on the sole testimony of the victim - The court emphasized the need for corroboration and found no substantial support from other witnesses, leading to reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. (Paras 20-24)
(C) Importance of timely reporting of incidents - The delay in reporting and inconsistencies in the victim's statements raised questions about the authenticity of the claims. (Paras 16-19)
Facts of the case:
The informant alleged systematic abuse by her husband and in-laws following marital disputes and a demand for cash. The incidents culminated in physical assaults and emotional distress occurring over a series of events, initially reported two days later.
Findings of Court:
The Court found substantial discrepancies in the victim's testimony and lack of corroborative evidence from other witnesses, undermining the prosecution's claims.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the reliability of evidence provided by prosecution witnesses, and the implications of delayed reporting.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the conviction could not stand solely on the victim's testimony given the lack of independent corroborating evidence, reinforcing the principle that suspicion alone is insufficient for a conviction.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the accused are acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal case and initial complaint. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the legal proceedings and charge framing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. witness testimonies in trial. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments from appellants and the state. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's assessment of evidence and victim's credibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. establishment of reasonable doubt leads to acquittal. (Para 23) |
| 7. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
Arindam Lodh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2019, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh in case No. S.T.(T/II) 10 of 2015, whereby and whereunder 9(nine) accused-appellants, namely Sima Gegam, Maya Rani Begam, Firoj Miah, Kiran Miah, Rabiya Begam, Swapna Bibi, Samayan Kabir, Suman Miah and Arati Debnath have been convicted under Sections 143 , 342, 352, 325, 354 & 354B read with Section 149 of IPC and other 4(four) accused-appellants, namely Samir Kar, Rinku Kar, Kajal Kar and Maya Rani Kar, have been convicted under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced 9(nine) accused persons to suffer RI for 6(six) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 3(three) months under Section 143 of IPC, and further 9(nine) accused-persons to suffer RI for 1(one) year under Section 342 read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 3(three) months and the 9(nine) accused persons also to suffer RI for 3(three) months under Section 352 read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15(fifteen) days. The 9(nine) accused persons also to suffer RI for 1(one) year under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 1(one) month and further 9(nine) accused persons also to suffer RI for 3(three) years under Section 354 read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 1(one) month and, lastly, the 9(nine) accused persons to suffer RI for 3(three) years under Section 354 B read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 1(one) month and all the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. The other 4(four) accused persons, namely Samir Kar, Rinku Kar, Kajal Kar and Maya Rani Kar to suffer RI for 3(three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 498(a) of IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15(fifteen) days, but considering the age of the convict, Maya Rani Kar was sentenced to suffer RI for 6(six) months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine she shall have to undergo imprisonment for a further period of 15(fifteen) days.
2. The informant (PW8) had lodged a complaint on 19.12.2012 to the Officer In-charge of Bishalgarh Police Station stating inter alia that on 16th Agrahayan of 1409 B.S. her marriage was solemnized and after three years of her marriage, a girl child was born out of their wedlock. After some days of the birth of the child, her husband and her in-laws started pressure on her for obtaining cash from her father. Being helpless, she started staying separately with her husband, but, her in-laws instigated her husband to force her to leave the house and the husband of the informant on trifling issues continued to torture on her. On 16.12.2012 A.D. last, in the evening, while she w
