HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. A.(J) 54/2024 Sri Ritesh Debbarma, son of Shambhuram Debbarma, resident of Birchandra Thakur Para, P.S. Kalyanpur, District- Khowai, Tripura;

----Appellant Versus The State of Tripura ----Respondent For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate Mr. A. Baidya, Advocate Ms. A. Chakma, Advocate Ms. D. Debroy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, PP Date of hearing : 31.03.2026 Date of delivery of judgment & Order : 07.04.2026 Whether fit for reporting : Yes BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

JUDGMENT

(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)

1. Heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State.

2. The convict-appellant, by means of filing the present appeal has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura, in connection with case No. S.T.(Type-1) 26 of 2018, whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 376D,302,34 of the IPC and was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean remainder of his natural life, and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation, for committing offence punishable under Sections 376D read with section 34 of IPC; and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Sections 302 read with section 34 of IPC;

wherein both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(3)(a) Facts leading to the present appeal are that, on 10.03.2017, one Surabala Debbarma (PW-2) lodged an oral complaint with the Kalyanpur police station to the effect that on 09.03.2017 in the night at about 21.00 hours, she was taking rice in her house and her daughter, the victim herein, (aged about 18 years), a Madhyamik candidate, on receiving a phone call went out of the house and since the victim did not return home for quite sometime, the informant came out of her house and searched for her daughter in the nearby surrounding and also in the house of her neighbours, but could not trace her. Subsequently in the next day morning at around 7 a.m. she came to know from one Swadesh Debbarma ((PW-5) that the condition her daughter i.e. the victim, was serious and was lying on a field at Ganthabil and on getting the information, she rushed there and found the victim lying on the field, and on seeing the same, she apprehended that someone might have raped and then killed her daughter i.e. the victim. Subsequently, the complaint was registered as Kalyanpur PS case no. 2017/KLN/006, dated 10.03.2017 under Sections 376D/302/34 IPC, and the same was endorsed to SI Nidhi Ram Reang (PW-41) for investigation.

(3)(b) In course of investigation, the IO visited the PO, examined material witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., arranged for post mortem examination of the deceased and seized several incriminating materials by preparing seizure list, collected medical examination reports of the victim and accused persons as well as SFSL reports of the samples obtained. In between the investigation, the accused persons, namely, Dipankar Debbarma, Amrit Debbarma (juvenile in conflict) and the present appellant, Ritesh Debbarma were arrested. The I.O. has also arranged for obtaining disclosure statements of the accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. On receipt of the charge sheet, specific case was registered before the learned trial court. Charge was framed against the accused persons, namely, Dipankar Debbarma and the present appellant, to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial commenced.

(3)(c) In course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 43 witnesses and exhibited some documents. On closure of prosecution witnesses, the appellant wa