HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. A. No.11 of 2024 Sri Karna Jhara s/o. Lt. Matilal Jhara of Dhalabil, Subashnagar, P.O. Khowai Tea Garden, P.S. Khowai, Dist.- Khowai Tripura, Pin- 799202.

….Appellant(s)

Versus The State of Tripura represented by Ld. PP, High Court of Tripura, Agartala.

….Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sarama Deb, Legal Aid Counsel.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Saha, Addl.PP.

Date of hearing and : 22.01.2026 Delivery of Judgment/

Order Whether fit for reporting :

Yes No 

=B=E=F=O=R=E=

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

Judgment and Order(Oral)

Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.

[2] Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Khowai, in case No. SPL (POCSO) 07 of 2023 whereby Ld. Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act, Section 341 of IPC and 323 of IPC, is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 8 of POCSO Act; to pay fine of Rs. 500/- under Section

341 of IPC and to pay further fine of Rs.500/- under Section 323, IPC.

[3] The gravamen of the allegations is that on 15.07.2023 at around 7.00 am at Dhalabil under P.S. Khowai, when the victim (name withheld) went to a nearby shop of her house in search of her mother, the appellant embraced her and also pressed the breast and on her outcry she was physically assaulted by the appellant with ‘lathi’. When locals arrived there, he fled away. The charges were accordingly framed under Section 8 of POCSO Act, Section 341 IPC and 323 IPC and also under Section 354 of IPC.

[4] Prosecution examined total 11 witnesses of whom the material witnesses are the victim (PW-1 herself) and PW-2, her aunt. PW-3 and PW-10 are the parents of the victim who are basically heresay witnesses. Other two neighbours, i.e. PW-5 and PW-6 were also examined by the prosecution who are also not the eye witness of the occurrence. They, simply heard about the incident from the mother of the victim. PW-4 is the scribe of the FIR. PW-7, a constable is the seizure witness of seizure of a branch of tree and the Aadhar card of the victim. PW-8 is the Recording Officer who registered the FIR. PW-9, Dr. Anisha Debbarma is the Medical Officer who examined the victim after the alleged incident. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet against the appellant under Section 8 of POCSO Act with Section 341 IPC and 323 IPC and also under Section 354 IPC.

[5] On appreciation of the evidences of the witnesses in totality, Ld. Trial Court finally convicted the appellant as discussed above.

[6] Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Ms. Sarama Deb, strongly argues that though the appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, but, age of the victim was not proved satisfactorily before the Court and only one Aadhar card was submitted into the evidence by the prosecution which itself does not reflect the date of birth of the victim.

[7] Ld. Counsel, Ms. Deb also contends that somewhere some witnesses have stated the use of a stick by the appellant while assaulting the victim, whereas some others have stated about the use of a branch of tree and therefore, there are serious discrepancy and moreover, in the seizure item also the signature of the witnesses were not taken. Moreover, there is also no satisfactory evidence as to where from the said branch of tree was seized.

[8] Ld. Counsel also further submits that according to PW-3 i.e the mother of the victim, she learnt about the incident from PW.2, whereas PW-2 has never claimed that she had stated those facts to the mother of the victim. Considering all these aspects, Ld. Counsel Ms. Deb submits that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and accordingly, same may be set aside.

[9] Ld. Addl. PP, Mr. R. Saha on the other hand submits that even if prosecution has not proved any other document except the Aadhar card of the victim, but nowhere the date of birth of the victim was challeng