Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Tri) 60

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
ARINDAM LODH, S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, JJ.

Sri Dipak Debnath, Son of Lt. Swapan Debnath - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Home – Respondent
Crl. A(J) No.34 of 2024
Decided On : 21-03-2025

Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. D. Datta, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P. Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.

Advocates:
Mr. D. Datta, Advocate. Mr. Raju Datta, P.P. Mr. Rajib Saha, Addl. P.P.

The conviction for rape was overturned due to insufficient evidence regarding the victim's disability and reliance on uncorroborated testimonies, highlighting the importance of forensic evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(l) - Conviction for rape - Appellant convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and fine - FIR lodged after delay of four days, attributed to victim's disability - Court relied on victim's testimony despite lack of corroborative forensic evidence - Forensic report indicated absence of appellant's semen - Court emphasized the need for sensitivity in cases involving disabled victims - Conviction set aside due to lack of cogent evidence regarding victim's disability and reliance on uncorroborated testimonies. (Paras 1, 6, 12, 19, 23)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164 - Recording of statements of disabled victims - Court noted failure to follow amended provisions for recording statements of disabled individuals. (Paras 14, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of raping a mentally disabled victim while her mother was away. The FIR was delayed due to the victim's inability to communicate effectively.

Findings of Court:
The conviction was based on the victim's testimony, but the court found insufficient evidence to support the claim of disability and the reliability of witness testimonies.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of the victim's testimony, the significance of the forensic evidence, and the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of corroborative evidence and the failure to establish the victim's disability undermined the conviction.

Result: Conviction set aside, appellant acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

S. Datta Purkayastha, J.

The appeal arises out of the judgment dated 03.04.2024 and sentence dated 06.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur whereby the appellant Dipak Debnath was convicted under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-.

2. The FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim (PW-1) on 20.06.2020 at Kakraban police station alleging, inter alia, that on 16.06.2020 at around 10.00 am, she went to Mirza market to consult a doctor leaving her disabled daughter (the victim) and one grandson (aged about 3 ½ years) in the house, and at around 01.30 pm when she returned, she learnt from her said grandson that the appellant had committed some filthy acts with her daughter. Thereafter, on asking her daughter also told her that the appellant coming to her house initially asked her daughter about the informant and hearing that she had gone to market, he pulled the victim on the backside of their house and raped her there. Thereafter, the informant informed the matter to the wife of the appellant and also neighbours, Sri Sital Sarkar (PW-3) and the Pradhan of their gram panchayat. The Pradhan thereafter instructed her to take recourse of law and then the FIR was lodged by her with an explanation that delay in lodging the same was occasioned as the victim was a disabled person unable to speak properly.

3. The police authority registered the FIR as Kakraban PS case No.53 of 2020 under Section 376(2)(l) IPC and Sub-Inspector Smt. Madhabi Debbarma (PW-17) conducted the investigation and finally laid the charge sheet under Section 376(2)(l) IPC against the appellant.

4. During investigation, the investigating officer collected and seized dried blood sample of both the victim and the appellant, vaginal swab, pubic hair and once black/blue colour panty of the victim and also smegma of appellant and sent all those items to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and after DNA examination, Dr. Subhankar Nath, Deputy Director of said Forensic Science Laboratory (PW-11) opined that seminal stain which was detected in the panty of the victim was not of the appellant. The Investigating Officer ignored said opinion while submitting the chargesheet.

5. The appellant in the Trial Court denied the charges framed under Section 376(2)(l) of IPC regarding commission of alleged rape upon the victim, on 16.06.2020 at around 10.00 hours to 13.30 hours at East Mirza who allegedly was suffering from mental or physical disability.

6. The prosecution during trial examined total 17(seventeen) witnesses and also proved certain documents into evidence and finally, learned Trial Court held him guilty for commission of said crime. While doing so, learned Trial Court observed that the victim was mentally retarded to the extent of 75% and she was not in a position to understand the good or bad aspect of sexual assault and as such the absence of any injuries on her person by itself was not sufficient to disbelieve her. While discarding the evidence of forensic expert who excluded presence of any semen of the appellant in the panty of the victim, learned Trial Court also observed that the Court was not bound by the said result of forensic examination as it was only of advisory in nature. Learned Trial Court also gave much reliance on the evidence of the victim and her mother and two neighbouring people and finally came to conclusion that the charge was established against the appellant.

7. Mr. D. Datta, learned counsel during hearing submits that learned Trial Court has misappreciated the evidences on record and illegally discarded the evidence of forensic expert. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of said scientific expert inasmuch as the prosecution itself relied on said evidence and said witness was also not declared hostile by the prosecution.