JUDGMENT : Arindam Lodh, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura Agartala in connection with case No. ST(T-1)/57 of 2014, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for commission of offence under Section 448 of IPC and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- only with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 376(2)(1) of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 20.09.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant entered into the dwelling hut of the victim who is mentally retarded for long time. The victim was subjected to rape committed by the appellant. The sister-in-law (younger brothers wife), Smt. Sima Sutradhar, P.W.-1 after pushing the door of the hut which was closed from inside had peeped through the window of the hut and found that the appellant was lying upon the body of her sister-in-law (elder sister of her husband). She raised alarm, on hearing her alarm, one Sri Amitabha Karmakar came to their house along with Sadana Sutradhar and Purnima Debnath, when the accused-appellant had fled away opening the door of the room. She reported the incident to her husband, Nitai Sutradhar (P.W.-2) over telephone. He immediately returned to his house, heard the entire episode from his wife, Smt. Sima Sutradhar and on the next day i.e., on 21.09.2013 at about 12.05 hours he lodged a written complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Amtali Police Station. 3. After receipt of the written compliant (Exbt-2), the printed form of FIR was filled up and the same was registered (Exbt-6). The case was investigated by a woman police officer Smt. Da Deb. She had rushed to the place of occurrence, arranged for medical examination of the victim, recorded the statement of the available witnesses, seized one red colour torned petticoat, one green colour silk cloth and other articles and material objects by preparing a seizure list (Exbt-1) in presence of witnesses. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer also collected the medical report of Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (Exbt-3) and report of Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsingarh ("TSFSL", in short) and prepared a hand sketch map of the place of occurrence with separate index (Exs. -7 and 8 respectively). During the investigation, the Investigating Officer also collected the medical report of Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (Exbt-3) and report of Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory, Narsingarh ("TSFSL", in short) and prepared a hand sketch map of the place of occurrence with separate index (Exs. -7 and 8 respectively). The report of the mental status prepared by the Board of Psychiatric was also collected. The said report of the Medical Board was brought on record. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. Prima facie material was found against the appellant under Section 448/376(2)(1) of IPC. After being committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, it was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for trial. 4. To substantiate the charge, altogether 12 witnesses including the informant and Investigating Officer were examined by the prosecution. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., where he denied the prosecution case and refused to adduce evidence in support of his defence. But subsequently, the accused-appellant made a prayer to the Trial Court seeking permission to adduce evidence on his behalf-Consequently, three defence witnesses were examined including the accused-Appellant himself. 5. The Trial Court formulated the following points to establish the charges under Sections 448 and 376 (2)(1) of IPC which are as under:- "(1) That the complainant had possession of the property in question; (2) that such property was a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any dwelling used as a place of worship or as a place for the custody of property; (3) that the accused entered into such building or having lawfully entered, unlawfully remained there; (4) that he did so with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession; On the other hand under Section 376 IPC points requiring proof are; (1) that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim; (2) that such intercourse was had against her will, or without her consent or with her consent, by a reason of unsoundness of mind, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences that to which she gives consent. (3) that there was penetration." 6. (3) that there was penetration." 6. After completion of trial, the learned Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the charges for committing offences punishable under Section 448 and Section 376(2)(1) of IPC. 7. The merits of the findings which led the learned Addl. Session Judge, to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as aforestated are questioned before this Court. 8. Before we delve into the merit of the case, let this Court be made a survey of the evidence and materials brought on record. 8.1. P.W.-1, Sima Sutradhar, is the wife of the younger brother of the victim i.e., the Sister-in-Law. She deposed that the victim (name is withheld) is her sister-in-law (her husband's elder sister) and the victim was aged about 40 years. She further deposed that the victim was mentally retarded and occasionally she moves around hither and thither within the village. She deposed that on 20.09.2013, she came back at her house in the evening and asked the victim as to whether she would take her meal, to which the victim agreed. P.W-1 had called her from kitchen to serve meal. But having found no response she went to her room and found the door of the room of the victim was closed from inside. Then she peeped inside the room pushing the window. The room was dark and she switched on the torch of her mobile and saw that the accused-Prasenjit Das alias Prasan lying upon her sister-in-law on bed. At that, Sima Sutradhar, P.W.-1 raised alarm and one Amitabha Karmakar, Sadhana Sutradhar and Purnima Debnath came at the place of occurrence when the accused fled away by openning the door of the room. 8.2. P.W. 1, further deposed at that time mere was a programme of immersion of idol of 'Ma Manosha' in the house of one Subal Sutradhar. The accused-appellant also attended that immersion ceremony. Thereafter, the accused came to the house of P.W.-1 to change his wet dress and after changing his dress with a 'gamcha' (towel) of her husband (informant-P.W.-2), the appellant left the house. However, this witness could not say as to when the accused again came back to their house. 8.3. This witness further deposed that she immediately reported the incident to others including one Sushil Das, respected person of the village. 9. However, this witness could not say as to when the accused again came back to their house. 8.3. This witness further deposed that she immediately reported the incident to others including one Sushil Das, respected person of the village. 9. Next, it would be relevant to peruse the evidence of Amitabha Karmakar (P.W.-3) and Purnima Debnath (P.W.-5), Sushil Das (P.W.-4) who had been named by P.W.-1, and appeared before the witness box. 10. Amitabha Karmakar (P.W.-3) in his evidence deposed that on 20.09.2013 at about 6.30/7.00 p.m., while he was going to attend a meeting and reached in front of the house of the informant Nitai Sutradhar (P.W.-2), he heard hue and cry raised by the wife of Nitai Sutradhar. He heard that wife of Nitai Sutradhar was shouting "Prasan Prasan, the act is not good", and P.W.-1 was pushing the door of the hut. At that time, P.W.-3 saw the appellant-Prasenjit was leaving the hut through the southern door of the hut to which the victim used to live. This witness further deposed that he did not give much attention as accused-Prasenjit used to work with Nitai, the brother of victim. 10.1. In his cross-examination, P.W.-3 stated that he did not know whether the appellant used to stay in the house of Nitai Sutradhar during night. 11. P.W.-5, Purnima Debnath in her evidence deposed that in the year 2013 one day at about 6.30/7.00 p.m., while returning from the house of Subal Sutradhar after participating in "Manosha Puja' celebration, she went to the house of Nitai Sutradhar. His wife (P.W.-1) told her that the accused-Prasenjit did a bad act upon the victim. 12. P.W.-4 Sushil Das deposed that on 20.09.2013, at about 6.00/6.15 p.m., he went to the house of Nitai when his wife Sima Sutradhar told that accused-Prasenjit committed rape of the victim at her dwelling hut Sushil Das further deposed that he asked the victim as to what happened with her. In reply, the victim told him that the accused entered inside the hut and shut the door but she could not say anything further. 13. P.W.-2, Nitai Sutradhar, the informant and the younger brother of the victim in his evidence had stated that P.W.-1, Sima Sutradhar who was his wife, on 20.09.2013 at about 6.35 p.m., informed him over telephone that the accused-Prasenjit Das committed rape upon the victim. 13. P.W.-2, Nitai Sutradhar, the informant and the younger brother of the victim in his evidence had stated that P.W.-1, Sima Sutradhar who was his wife, on 20.09.2013 at about 6.35 p.m., informed him over telephone that the accused-Prasenjit Das committed rape upon the victim. Immediately, he came back to the house and as per advice of his neighbours he submitted the written complaint at East Agartala Women Police Station on the next day. He identified his signature in the ejahar (Exbt-2). 14. P.W. 11, Rakesh Das deposed that on 21.09.2013, as per version of Nitai Sutradhar (P.W. 2), he wrote the ejahar. He identified the ejahar and the signature as scribe of the ejahar. 15. That apart, to demolish the prosecution evidence the accused had tried to make out a case that there was a dispute between the appellant and the informant on the issue of payment of cumulative remuneration of Rs. 2,00,000/- for working as helper under Nitai Sutradhar for about 7/8 years as carpenter. 16. It is further noticed by this Court that in course of cross-examination, the defence had tried to project another case that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 had initiated a proposal with the appellant to marry the victim and as the appellant did not agree, they lodged the false complaint against the appellant. (In course of examination, P.W.-1 subsequently stated that she with her own eye had seen the incident. She also stated that her husband i.e., P.W.-2 never used this room for his personal purpose. P.W. 1 in her cross-examination further denied that Sushil Das did not ask her sister-in-law about the incident or that she did not disclose that the accused closed the door and put off the light.) 17. Besides, what has been stated hereinabove, the defence side could not make out any material contradiction to destroy the prosecution case. 18. Now, proceeding to the mental health status of the victim and the evidence relating thereto, we find that P.W.-7, Dr. Bimal Krishna Bhowmik who was posted as head of the Department of Modern Psychiatric Hospital, Narsingarh, deposed that on 17.10.2013 with reference to a case bearing No. Misc. 18. Now, proceeding to the mental health status of the victim and the evidence relating thereto, we find that P.W.-7, Dr. Bimal Krishna Bhowmik who was posted as head of the Department of Modern Psychiatric Hospital, Narsingarh, deposed that on 17.10.2013 with reference to a case bearing No. Misc. 4567/2013 in Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura Agartala raising out of East Agartala, Women Police Station Case No. 82 of 2013 had examined the victim as member of the Board of Modem Psychiatric Hospital along with two other members of the Board, namely, Dr. Jhotirmoy Ghosh and Dr. Dibyendu Ray, the medical officers of the said hospital. He stated that after examination of the patient they opined that the victim was suffering from Schizophrenia. He identified the report which was marked as Exbt-4. He also identified his signature (Exbt-4/1). 18.1. P.W.-7, further deposed that "it is a major Psychiatric disorder and patient was having though disorder and other behavioural problem including hallucination and delusion and absence of insight and poor judgment". From her symptoms, P.W.-7 deposed that she was suffering from the disease since long. 18.2. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the victim was not in a position to give the history of her suffering. However, he stated in cross that the patient (victim) was produced before mem as per the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura Agartala. 18.3. P.W.-8, Dr. Jyotirmoy Ghosh, one of the member of the medical board deposed that the victim was suffering from Schizophrenia. He also identified the report (Exbt-4) and his signature (Exbt-4/2). 18.4. P.W. 9, Dr. Dibyendu Ray also deposed in the similar terms as those of P.W.-7 and P.W.-8. 19. Next, we may come to the scientific examination of the vaginal swab and other nature of evidence relating to the rape of the victim. 19.1. P.W.-6, Dr. Antara Debbarma conducted the medical examination of the victim when she was posted as Junior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology AGMC and GBP Hospital on 21.09.2013. P.W. 6 did not find any genital or extra genital injuries on the body of the victim. On 05.12.2013 she received the vaginal swab analysis report from SFSL, Narshingar, where she found that seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin was detected. Finally she opined that there was recent sexual intercourse. She identified the report as (Exbt-3). P.W. 6 did not find any genital or extra genital injuries on the body of the victim. On 05.12.2013 she received the vaginal swab analysis report from SFSL, Narshingar, where she found that seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin was detected. Finally she opined that there was recent sexual intercourse. She identified the report as (Exbt-3). In cross-examination she stated that the victim was examined on 21.09.2012 at about 02.20 p.m. 19.2. P.W.-10, Dr. Subhankar Nath had examined the vaginal swab (Exbt-A) of the victim with one petticoat (Exbt-B) and one saree (Exbt-C) belonging to victim when he was posted as Deputy Director SFSL, Narshingar on 29.10.2013. After examination, he submitted the report (Exbt-5) and his signature was marked as (Exbt-5/1). P.W. 10 deposed that on examination, seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin were detected in the Exbt. marked as A and B and seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin was not detected in the exhibit marked as C i.e., the saree of the victim. However on examination, the group of the semen could not be established. 20. We have heard Mr. A.K. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ratan Datta, learned P.P., appearing for the State-respondent. 21. Mr. Banerjee, at the very outset, submitted that entire prosecution case was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the second proviso of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., as inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (No. 13 of 2013). Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel next submitted that the learned Trial Court had miserably failed to consider the factual and legal aspects of the case when the victim was never examined by the Investigating Officer. No attempt was made to record her statement before the Judicial Magistrate. No attempt was also made to bring the victim in the Court to participate in the Trial and due to this, the entire prosecution case against the appellant was vitiated. 21.1. Learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to the contradiction in the statement of P.W.-7 compared to the medical report furnished by him. He pointed out that in cross-examination P.W.-7 stated that without the consultation of the hospital records relating to the previous period of treatment it was not possible to give the history of her suffering but from the report, it was found that they did not see the previous treatment document. 21.2. He pointed out that in cross-examination P.W.-7 stated that without the consultation of the hospital records relating to the previous period of treatment it was not possible to give the history of her suffering but from the report, it was found that they did not see the previous treatment document. 21.2. Next plank of submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the seminal stain found in Group-A and B was not compared with the group of semen of the appellant and in that event, conviction of the accused was illegal and unwarranted. 21.3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no recent injury was found in the private part of the victim which led to the inference that the accused did not commit any forcible intercourse falling within the purview of the Section 376 of IPC. 21.4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel further argued that failure of the prosecution to videograph the entire episode made the prosecution case unsustainable in law. 21.5. Lastly, Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case was passed upon conjectures and surmises and it was projected due to previous enmity and for the reason that the accused-appellant had demanded money due to P.W.-2, younger brother of the victim. 22. On the other hand, Mr. Ratan Datta, learned P.P., strenuously defended the judgment of the learned Trial Court contending that the victim admittedly was mentally retarded since she has been suffering from Schizophrenia for many years and the Doctor, P.W.-7, categorically stated that such patient was having thought disorder and other behavioural problems. 22.1. Learned P.P., further contended that P.W.-1 was the eye-witness to the incident of rape. Having heard the shouts of P.W.-1, Amitabha Karmakar (P.W. 3), Sushil Das (P.W.-4) and Purnima Debnath (P.W.-5) corroborated the version of P.W.-1 and their evidence are very much relevant which complete the chain of entire episode. He further contended that medical evidence also supported that victim was raped on 20.09.2013 at about 6.00/6.15 p.m. Seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin was found in her vaginal swab as well as in her petticoat. 22.2. Lastly, learned P.P., urged that the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should be upheld and affirmed by the Court. 23. We have considered the rival contentions and also scanned meticulously the evidence and materials brought on record. 24. 22.2. Lastly, learned P.P., urged that the conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge should be upheld and affirmed by the Court. 23. We have considered the rival contentions and also scanned meticulously the evidence and materials brought on record. 24. Indisputably, the victim at the time of the incident had been suffering from mental illness, Schizophrenia. The appellant himself during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., answering to the question No. 31 as well as D.W. 1 in his examination-in-chief stated that the victim is a mentally retarded person and used to roam here and mere of the village. 25. Now, proceeding to the merits of the submission of Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case is not sustainable in law due to non-compliance of the second proviso of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C., let us take note of the said provision which reads as under:- "Provided further that- (a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under Section 354, Section 354-A, Section 354-B, Section 354-C, Section 354-D, Section 376, (Section 376-A, Section 376-AB, Section 376-B, Section 376-C, Section 376-D, Section 376-DA, Section 376-DB) Section 376-E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of any interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be; (b) the recording of such information shall be videographed; (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5-A) of Section 164 as soon as possible." 26. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel has laid much emphasis on Clause (a) and (b) that since the victim was a mentally disabled, her statement ought to have been recorded in the presence of the interpreter or special educator as the case may be; and the recording of such information shall be videographed. 27. We have the opportunity to go through the back ground of the bill in "Chapter 1 of the Report of the Law Commissioner of India". 27. We have the opportunity to go through the back ground of the bill in "Chapter 1 of the Report of the Law Commissioner of India". The relevant portion of the bill which prompted the legislature to bring the amendment Act 2013 may be reproduced hereunder:- "1.1.2. The Bill seeks to achieve the following objectives:- "........................ (d) Amend Sections 154, 160 and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for providing male persons under the age of eighteen years or above the age of sixty-five years and women more protection; (e) Amend the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by way of inserting a new Section 53 A wherein evidence of the character of the victim or of his or her previous sexual experience shall not be relevant or questioned.".................. 1.2.4. The Ministry of Home affairs mentioned in its background note on the Bill that as the subject matter relating to rape is sensitive in nature, it was decided that the Bill on rape laws may be finalized after an in depth consultation with all concerned. Therefore, a High Powered Committee (HPC) was constituted on 29 January, 2010 under the Chairmanship of the former Union Home Secretary comprising Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development; Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs; Secretary, Legislative Department; Member Secretary, NCW; Member Secretary, Law Commission of India; Special Secretary, MHA an Consultant (Judl.), MHA as members to examine the issue relating to the review of rape laws. The HPC discussed the matter in its meetings held on 12.2.2010 and 15.3.2010. The suggestions made by the HPC were formulated into a draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2010 which was referred to the State Government for their comments/views. The draft Bill was also posted on the website of the Ministry of Home Affairs for comments of the general public. The HPC after going into the comments received from the various individuals and NGOs, the State Government and also after further consultation amongst its members on 10.08.2010, 04.10.2010 and 08.02.2011 finalized its report along with the draft Criminal Law (Amendment). Bill, 2011 and recommended to the Government for its enactment." 28. The HPC after going into the comments received from the various individuals and NGOs, the State Government and also after further consultation amongst its members on 10.08.2010, 04.10.2010 and 08.02.2011 finalized its report along with the draft Criminal Law (Amendment). Bill, 2011 and recommended to the Government for its enactment." 28. Reading of the second proviso as amended as a whole in light of the statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that the intention of the legislature was to focus on providing more protection to victim of rape who has less intelligence and as such mentally disabled and to make the law more stringent against 'rapist' and offender/s of other related offence as envisaged in the said proviso. Further, the object of legislating the said second proviso is not to expose such unfortunate women in front of the society. 28.1. According to us, the object of recording the statement of the women by a police officer or by any women Government Officer is to enable the victim of rape to open up freely without any sorts of hesitation and shame. Further, the legislative intent to videograph the entire recording of statement is to prevent a victim of rape to retract from her statement at the stage of trial in the event of being threatened or allured or influenced by the offender in lieu of money or for any other extraneous reason. 28.2. From reading the statement of object and reason and the legislative intention to bring amendment by way of inserting second proviso as aforestated we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that an offender of the crime of rape or related offences as inserted in the said proviso would in any way help such offender in the event of violation of any of the provision of second proviso of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. 28.3. By way of enactment of second proviso the Legislature wanted to adopt as a beneficial measure with the sole purpose to achieve the legislative intention to protect the interest of the women who looses their modesty qua enabling the justice delivery system to come to a logical conclusion against the offenders of such crimes. 28.4. By way of enactment of second proviso the Legislature wanted to adopt as a beneficial measure with the sole purpose to achieve the legislative intention to protect the interest of the women who looses their modesty qua enabling the justice delivery system to come to a logical conclusion against the offenders of such crimes. 28.4. Further, the second proviso, in our opinion, is a remedial legislation directed to cure the immediate mischief and to bring into effect some type of social reform by ameliorating the condition of certain causes of person who according to present day notion may not have been fairly treated in the past. According to us, non-observance of the procedure as envisaged in the second proviso of Section 154(1), Cr.P.C. has not been intended in any manner whatsoever to provide any benefit to the offender of the offence as mentioned in the said proviso. 29. In G.P. Singh's book on "Principle of Statutory Interpretation" 12 Edition, 2010 at page 866 it has been observed that: "Remedial statutes are also known as welfare benefit or social justice oriented legislation and a remedial status receives a liberty construction, departure of which will defeat the very purpose of fundamental intention of the legislature to defect or deficiency which moted the legislature to bring the new enactment for the interest of rendering justice the society needs at the hour. Here the Court is to make a purposive interpretation which is consistent in legislative intent and the purpose or object of the legislature." 30. Here, we may profitably refer the decision of the Apex Court in EERA through Dr. Manujula Krippendorf v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., reported in (2017) 15 SCC 133 : ( AIR 2017 SC 3457 ) : (2018 CriLJ 186 (SC)) (SCC p. 175 in para 64):- "64. ........... There is no quarrel over the proposition that the method of purposive construction has been adopted keeping in view the text and the context of the legislation, the mischief it intends to obliterate and the fundamental intention of the legislature when it comes to social welfare legislations. If the purpose is defeated, absurd result is arrived at. The Court need not be miserly and should have the broad attitude to take recourse to in supplying a word wherever necessary. Authorities referred to hereinabove encompass various legislations wherein the legislature intended to cover various fields and address the issues. If the purpose is defeated, absurd result is arrived at. The Court need not be miserly and should have the broad attitude to take recourse to in supplying a word wherever necessary. Authorities referred to hereinabove encompass various legislations wherein the legislature intended to cover various fields and address the issues. While interpreting a social welfare or beneficent legislation one has to be guided by the "colour", "content" and the "context of statutes" and if it involves human rights, the conceptions of procrustean justice and Lilliputian hollowness approach should be abandoned. The judge has to release himself from the chains of strict linguistic interpretation and pave the path that serves the should of the legislative intention and in that event, he becomes a real creative constructionist Judge." 31. We feel happy to take note of the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Insurance Finance and Investment Co. Ltd and Ors., reported in (1987) 1 SCC 424 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1023 ) which is also referred to in the case of EERA (Supra) and is reproduced hereunder. (SCC P. 201, Para-123):- "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of he statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and signed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a stature and no word of a stature can be construed in isolation. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and signed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a stature and no word of a stature can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every world has a place and everything is in its place. It is by looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by reference to what preceded the in the setting of the entire Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment and the reasons for it that the Court construed the expression 'Prize Chit in Srinivasa and we find no reason to depart from the Court's Construction." 32. Having observed thus, we repel the submission of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that non-observance of the provision of procedure as laid down in second proviso of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. vitiates the prosecution case. 33. Coming to the next question as to whether in the context of the case and having regard to the mental health status of the victim, her non-examination or non-appearance before the Court vitiates the process of prosecution un-warranting the conviction of the appellant for committing offences charged against him. In many cases, we find that victim of 'Rape and Murder' the offenders are convicted on the basis of the evidence of eyewitness/witnesses or by circumstantial evidence. It implies that examination of victim of 'rape' is not mandatory and if it is so, then perhaps many of the offenders of 'rape' would lead life as free bird and would further encourage and motivate them to repeat similar crimes. 34. Here, it would be apposite to refer the decision of Salimalim Shamsher Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, wherein the High Court of Bombay had observed that: "It is established by evidence on record that she was mentally sick or retarded and therefore she was unable to express herself and because of this reason her evidence could not be recorded. In such circumstances, merely because her evidence could not be recorded, the evidence of two eye witnesses and other circumstantial evidence corroborating them would not be simply brushed aside or thrown away. In such circumstances, merely because her evidence could not be recorded, the evidence of two eye witnesses and other circumstantial evidence corroborating them would not be simply brushed aside or thrown away. Non-examination of the girl in the given circumstances will not be fatal for the prosecution case. In view of the fact and circumstances, I am convinced that the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that the accused had committed rape on the prosecutrix in the running train." 35. Now, coming to the context of the present case, if we examine and analyse the evidence, we find that P.W.-1, Sima Sutradhar is the eye-witness to the incident of 'rape' to the victim by the appellant. At that fateful evening, P.W.-1 offered the victim meal to which she had agreed to take. However, on call from kitchen by P.W.-1 the victim did not respond which prompted P.W.-1 to knock her door which was found to be closed from inside. Then she peeped inside the room pushing the window of the said room which was dark. She switched on the torch inbuilt to her mobile when she saw the accused-Prasenjit alias Prasan lying upon her sister-in-law in her bed. To find out the genuineness of the statement, we have taken note of the hand sketch map and index of the said room of the victim prepared by P.W.-12, the Investigating Officer (Exbt-7 and 8, respectively). It is revealed that "A" indicates P.O. dwelling hut, 'AT indicates wooden cot. 'A2' indicates window of the P.O. hut. We have seen the bed 'Al' can well be seen through the window 'A2' by a flash of light and there would be no difficulty to see the bed prominently. She has categorically deposed that she shouted and raised alarm and on hearing the same, Amitabha Karmakar (P.W.-3) and Smt. Purnima Debnath (P.W.-5) and one Sadhana Sutradhar immediately had rushed to the spot when the accused fled away. She reported the incident to them. In furtherance thereof Amithaba Karmakar had seen the appellant to flee away opening the door of the room. 36. Here, the said version of P.W.-1 was corroborated by Amitabha Karmakar P.W.-3, who has stated that both the victim and the accused-Prasenjit were known to him. He categorically stated that on 20.09.2013 at about 6.30/7.00 p.m., he was going to attend a meeting. 36. Here, the said version of P.W.-1 was corroborated by Amitabha Karmakar P.W.-3, who has stated that both the victim and the accused-Prasenjit were known to him. He categorically stated that on 20.09.2013 at about 6.30/7.00 p.m., he was going to attend a meeting. When he reached in front of the house of the informant Nitai Sutradhar, he heard hue and cry raised by the wife of Nitai Sutradhar and on hearing the same he went to the house of Nitai and heard that she was uttering "Prasan Prasan, the act is not good". The said witness further found that P.W.-1 was pushing the door of the hut. At that time he saw the accused to leave the hut through the southern door in which sister of informant used to live. 37. In cross-examination, P.W.-3 denied the suggestion made by the accused-appellant he didn't go to the house of Nitai (P.W.-2) hearing the cry of his wife. 38. Similarly, P.W.-4 also went to the house of the Nitai Sutradhar hearing the cry of P.W.-1, Sima Sutradhar on 20.09.2013 in the evening at about 6.00/6.15 p.m. when P.W.-1 told him that accused prasenjit committed rape on her sister-in-law (victim) at her dwelling hut. The said witness had further stated that the husband of the victim deserted her due to her mental illness. More importantly, it is further revealed from his evidence that he asked the victim what happened with her, and in reply the victim told her that the accused entered inside her hut and shut the door but she could not state anything more. The said P.W.-4 was the nominated member of the Municipal ward of their area. 39. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that the victim did not state to him that the accused shut the door of her dwelling hut or that P.W.-2 Nitai Sutradhar did not tell him about the commission of rape upon the sister-in-law by the accused. 40. P.W.-5 has also stated that on that fateful evening at around 6.30/7.00 p.m., she was going from the house of Subal Sutradhar after enjoying "Manosha Puja" and at that time she went to the house of Nitai Sutrdhar. The wife of Nitai Sutradhar, told her that the accused-Prasanjit committed bad act upon the victim and at that time Sadhana Sutradhar was also with her. 41. The wife of Nitai Sutradhar, told her that the accused-Prasanjit committed bad act upon the victim and at that time Sadhana Sutradhar was also with her. 41. In cross-examination, she stated that she returned to her house from the house of Nitai Satrudhar. She has denied the suggestion made by the accused that Prasenjit did not do any bad act with the victim. 42. From the Medical examination report, of the victim it is revealed that there was evidence of sexual intercourse (Exbt-3) P.W.-10, the Scientific expert has stated in his evidence that he found the seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin in the vaginal swab of the victim (Exbt-A) as well as to her petticoat (Exbt-B). In that circumstance, whether spermatozoa was found in Exbt-C (Saree) or not does not matter. 43. We have considered the deposition of the defence witnesses. D.W. 1, has stated that since he demanded remuneration, P.W.-2 has fabricated the story to accuse him only to avoid the payment of remuneration. In cross-examination, he has admitted that there is an association of workers of carpenter and he has admitted that he did not make any complaint in the office of the association regarding his due wages payable by the informant. The appellant has further stated that he did not give any allegation against P.W.-2, to any member of municipal ward or to any other authority. 44. D.W.-2, Shri Bimal Das deposed that he came to know from the villager that Nitai Sutradhar, P.W.-2 had lodged false complaint against the informant. In cross-examination, he has stated that he knew the witness namely Amitabha Karmakar, P.W.-3, Sushil Das, P.W.-4 and Purnima Debnath, P.W.-5 who are also residents of the same village. 45. D.W. 3, Sri Manindra Das is the father of the appellant. He has deposed that there was enmity between his son and Nitai Sutradhar in respect of money which his son was entitled to be paid. 46. We have noticed that D.W.-2 one of the villager who is come forward to depose on behalf of the defence has stated that he has heard from the co-villager that Nitai Sutradhar has lodged a false case against the appellant, who is son of D.W.-3 but it has not escaped from our notice that D.W.-2 has failed to name any of the co-villager who allegedly told him that Nitai Sutradhar had lodged false case against the appellant. 47. 47. Further, we have noticed an interesting feature in the instant case that the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 25.12.2013 showing the accused-appellant, Prasenjit Das as an absconder with a prayer to the Court to issue permanent warrant of arrest against the appellant. It is also reflected in the charge sheet that in course of investigation, several attempts were made to cause arrest of the accused-person. But he somehow evaded. It was also observed in the charge sheet that the accused-person was required to be examined medically to ascertain his sexual ability as well as to tally the common semen found by the experts of SFSL in the seized exhibits. His absconsion is quite indicative of his conduct and relevant under Section 8 of the evidence Act which presumably points towards the complicity of the appellant with the offence. 48. While arguing the case, the learned counsel of the appellant time and again had tried to persuade us that the group of semen/spermatozoa of the accused-appellant had not been tallied with the specimen semen/spermatozoa found in the vaginal swab (Group-A) and petticoat (Group-B). In our view had not the appellant absconded, the Investigating Officer must have collected the necessary sample of semen/spermatozoa from the appellant and could have arranged for his examination/grouping, which would be evident from the charge sheet itself. Furthermore, the appellant had adduced evidence on his behalf. He could easily make a prayer to the learned Trial Court below in course of trial expressing his desire to compare his semen with those of semen/spermatozoa found in vaginal swab and petticoat of the victim. But he did not do so drawing adverse inference against him. 49. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the evidence and materials on record. We find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the P.W.-1, Sima Sutradhar who saw the entire episode of rape. Her version is well corroborated by Shri Amitabha Karmakar (P.W.-3), Shri Sushil Das (P.W-4) and Shri Purnima Debnath (P.W.-5). Though P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.- 5 are not eye-witness to the incident but the statement of P.W.-1 is very much relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act being contemporaneous and immediate after the incident and the evidence is of res gestae. Though P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.- 5 are not eye-witness to the incident but the statement of P.W.-1 is very much relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act being contemporaneous and immediate after the incident and the evidence is of res gestae. The way the evidence put forth by P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, according to us, carries enough reliability and credence and the entire evidence starting from P.W.-1 corroborated by P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 coupled with the medical evidence only point towards the guilt of the accused-appellant and nothing else. There is no scope to draw any other inference other than the guilt of the accused to the crime. 50. In the light of the above discussion on factual and legal aspects, we find no merit in the appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as declared by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura does not call for any interference. 51. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction of sentence remains un-altered which is affirmed and upheld by this Court.