Advocates:
['S BHATTACHARJEE', '', 'Mr S ADHIKARY', 'JUTHIKA NAUKAHAM', 'ARCHANA REANG', 'PP', '', 'Mr S LODH']

Page - 1 of 20

Crl. Rev. P. No. 21 of 2018

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

Crl. Rev. P. No. 21 of 2018

Shri Sujan Das,

Son of Sri Indra Kumar Das, resident of Birganj, P.S. Birganj, Gomati,

Tripura

----- Petitioner(s)

Versus

1.

The State of Tripura,

2.

Smt. Ballu Roy,

Wife of Sri Hari Krishna Roy, Vill-Birganj, P.O. Birganj, P.S. Birganj,

Dist. Gomati Amarpur, Tripura

3.

Smti. Pinki Roy,

Daughter of Sri Hari Krishna Roy, Vill-Birganj, P.O. Birganj, P.S.

Birganj, Dist. Gomati, Amarpur, Tripura

-----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. R. Datta, P.P.

Date of Hearing

: 7^th July, 2021.

Date of Pronouncement

:

8^th October, 2021.

Whether fit for reporting

: NO

B_E_F_O_R_E_

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

JUDGMENT & ORDER

By means of filing a criminal revision petition on

04.06.2018 petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated

Page - 2 of 20

Crl. Rev. P. No. 21 of 2018

28.03.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District in

Criminal Appeal No. 47(3) of 2016 affirming the judgment and order

dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amarpur

in Case No. GR 184 of 2011 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate

convicted the petitioner for offence punishable under sections 448 and

354 IPC and sentenced him to RI for one year under section 448 IPC

and RI for 2 years under section 354 IPC and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with

default stipulation.

[2]

The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the FIR

lodged by the mother of victim with the officer in charge of Birganj

police station at Amarpur on 03.11.2011 wherein it was alleged that at

about 10.30 pm at previous night, the petitioner who was a neighbour

of her entered into her house and outraged the modesty of her

daughter by pulling her hands. Following her cry, the neighbours came

out and rescued her daughter. The accused was also physically

assaulted by the neighbours. When she returned home she saw the

accused in her house who was detained by her neighbours.

[3]

On the basis of the said FIR, Birganj PS case No. 83 of

2011 was registered for offence punishable under sections 448 and 354

IPC and the same was investigated by Goutam Jamatia, Sub Inspector

of Police who after completion of investigation charge sheeted the

Page - 3 of 20

Crl. Rev. P. No. 21 of 2018

petitioner for having committed offence punishable under sections 448

and 354 IPC.

[4]

The trial commenced in the court of the Judicial

Magistrate First Class at Amarpur. Since the accused pleaded not guilty

to the accusation, the prosecution witnesses were called. During trial,

seven prosecution witnesses including the victim and her father were

examined. After the recording of prosecution evidence was over,

accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He abjured his guilt

and claimed that the charge was foisted on him. Accused petitioner

declined to adduce any evidence on his defence. On appreciation of

evidence, trial court came to the conclusion that both the charges under

sections 448 and 354 IPC was proved against the petitioner for which

he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as stated above.

[5]

Petitioner challenged the judgment and order of his

conviction and sentence by filing appeal in the court of the Sessions

Judge of Gomati Judicial District at Udaipur. Learned Sessions Judge

having found no fault with the findings of the learned trial court

affirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

[6]

The aggrieved petitioner has challenged the impugned

judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge in this criminal revision

petition mainly on the following grounds:

Page - 4 of 20

Crl. Rev. P. No. 21 of 2018

(i)

Learned Sessions Judge did n