Back
2024 Supreme(Tri) 38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
ARINDAM LODH, S.D. PURKAYASTHA, JJ.
Krishnadhan Sarkar S/o Late Manindra Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Appeal (J) No. 30 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT: S.6
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.161, S.164(2)
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, relying on credible and corroborative evidence - In the absence of significant supporting evidence, conviction cannot be upheld. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The victim, a 7-year-old girl, was allegedly assaulted by the appellant after the victim's parents left the home unattended. The complaint was filed on 18.04.2019, and the incident was narrated by the victim to her parents, leading to the prosecution. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide compelling evidence to corroborate the allegations, particularly due to the lack of physical proof or eyewitness accounts that supported the victim's statements. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The key issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently proved the offences charged against the appellant, considering the discrepancies and lack of corroboration. (Paras 10, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that in the absence of tangible evidence and substantial corroboration among witnesses, the prosecution's case lacked credibility and could not sustain a conviction under the relevant sections. (Paras 18, 19)
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty.
For the Appellant : Samarjit Bhattacharjee
For the Respondent: S. Ghosh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. commencement of appeal and overview of conviction (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the crime and prosecution's case (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments of the appellant and the prosecution (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. analysis of evidence and credibility concerns (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final verdict and acquittal (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
ARINDAM LODH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Ghosh, learned PP appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The convict-appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Tripura, Agartala, in connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 25 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Sections 376 AB/448/506 of the IPC and under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short ‘POCSO’) Act, 2012, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 (twenty) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act with default stipulation, and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC with default stipulation, and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC with default stipulation with a further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The facts in brief, are that, one Swapna Debnath, mother of the victim (name not disclosed) lodged a complaint on 18.04.2019 to the Officer-in-Charge of West Agartala Women police station, stating inter alia that on 17.04.2019 she along with her husband went to bring some articles from the owner of the house where she used to work as maidservant. At that time, their 7 years old daughter i.e. the victim, was inside the room and they kept the front door of the said room under lock and key, but, the back door was kept open. During their such absence, the accused person entered into the room through the back door and asked her 7 years old daughter to put off her clothes and other wearing apparels which she initially tried to resist, but, thereafter, the accused threatened her and forced her to unrobe her wearing apparels. Thereafter, the accused first entered his fingers into the vagina and thereafter penetrated his penis into the vagina of the victim after taking off his lungi. When the informant and her husband came back to the house, the victim narrated the entire incident to them. Then, the parents of the victim informed the said incident to the wife of the accused, and other 2 persons, namely, Sri Prangopal Sarkar and Smt. Saraswati Sarkar. Prangopal Sarkar apprised them that he had seen the accused to enter into the room of the victim. Thereafter, they advised the parents of the victim to lodge a complaint with the police station.
4. Accordingly, FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of as many as 17 witnesses including the Doctor who medically examined the victim after the incident and the Forensic Expert. After completion of investigation, having found prima facie evidence the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet. On receipt of the records i.e. police report, learned Special Judge took the cognizance of the alleged offence and framed charge under Sections 376(2)(i)/506 of the IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
5. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including the informant and the victim. At the closure of recording prosecution evidences, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating materials surfaced in the evidence let in by the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, the a
