HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl.A(J) 30 of 2022

Sri Biplab Tripura

---Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura

---Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)

: Ms. R. Guha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. S. Debnath, Addl, PP.

Date of hearing and date of

judgment and order

: 22.11.2023

Whether fit for reporting

: No

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

ORDER

This is an appeal under Section 374 read with 401 and 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant herein against the

impugned Order of conviction, dated 22.08.2022 as well as impugned order

of sentence passed on 24.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Court of Special judge,

South Tripura, Belonia, in connection with the case No. Special 08 (POCSO)

of 2020.

[2]

The case of the prosecution is that a case was initiated on the

basis of FIR lodged by the father of the victim child with the O/C, P.R. Bari

P.S. alleging inter alia that, on 13.05.2018 at about 9 a.m. the informant

along with his wife went to the mother's house of the informant situated in

the same village i.e. at Niharnagar, Krishnabashi Para. At that time his minor

daughter was alone in the house. At about 1200 hours the informant and his

wife were returned to their house and found their minor daughter was not

available in the house. After searching the informant came to know that

accused Biplab Tripura kidnapped his minor daughter from his house.

[3]

On this, P.R. Bari P.S. Case No. 2018/PRB/076 under Sec. 366 of

IPC was registered. The case was investigated and on completion of

investigation SI Ratan Chakraborty filed charge sheet against accused Sri

Page 2 of 4

Biplab

Tripura

for

commission

of

offence

punishable

under

Sec.

366/376(i)/376(o) of IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

[4]

Having received the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of

offence punishable under Sec. 366/376(i)/376(o) of IPC and section 4 of

POCSO Act against accused Sri Biplab Tripura. After that, this Court framed

charges against accused Sri Biplab Tripura under Sec 366 and 376(2)(n) of

IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act. The contents of the charges read over and

explained to the accused person, to which, he pleaded not guilty and desired

to stand the trial. In total fourteen witnesses were examined by the

prosecution to prove the charges against the accused person. After the

process of recording the evidence of witnesses so adduced from the side of

the prosecution was concluded, the accused person was subjected to

examination as warranted U/S 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with respect to the

incriminating circumstances that surfaced against him in the evidence on

record. His plea is of total denial and false implication. However, he declined

to adduce any witness on his defence.

[5]

Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that in this case

prosecution has examined total fourteen witnesses and total fifteen exhibits

have been given in favour of the prosecution case. He also submits that all

the material witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the

opinion of expert also is in favour of the prosecution. The victim along with

her father and mother have fully supported the case and some independent

witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. On the basis of

the evidence the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt against the accused person. The accused person should be

convicted in this case.

[6]

On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused submits that

from the deposition of the victim this court can come to the conclusion that

the victim herself has left her parental house and started to live with the

Page 3 of 4

accused. He submits that the statement recorded under Sec. 164(5), Cr.P.C.

gives a clear picture where victim has admitted that she voluntarily left her

house with the accused as she had love affair w