Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 159 (TRI)

Kamal Tripura v. State of Tripura

2022-03-28

ARINDAM LODH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The appellant, by means of filing the present appeal has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in connection with case No. Special (POCSO) 3 of 2019 wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. 3. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of a complaint lodged by the victim that she was forcibly abducted on 06.01.2018 at night at about 11.00 a.m. She was lifted by Suman @ Sukhen Tripura and Kamal Tripura, and was raped by said Suman @ Sukhen Tripura. 4. On the basis of the said complaint, police registered a case vide Manubazaar PS case no. 2018/MNB/002 under Sections 366(A)/343/ 376/34 of the IPC. Investigation was carried out, and after completion of investigation charge sheet under Section 366(A)/114 of IPC was submitted against the accused, namely, Kamal Tripura. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed against the appellant, Kamal Tripura under Sections 366/376(3) of IPC read with section 109 IPC and under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution had examined as many as 16 witnesses and introduced 21 documents, which were brought on record by way of marking as Exhibits 1 to 21. After completion of recording of prosecution evidences, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he repeated the plea of his innocence. After hearing argument of both the parties, the learned Special Judge had convicted the appellant under section 366 IPC and sentenced him as aforestated. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant, Kamal Tripura has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the victim girl had voluntarily left with the appellant. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the deposition of PW-1, the victim herein. 7. I have gone through the said deposition of PW-1. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the victim girl had voluntarily left with the appellant. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the deposition of PW-1, the victim herein. 7. I have gone through the said deposition of PW-1. She had deposed that on the fateful date and time she was waiting on the road side of Debendrapara for going to Manubazar. At that point of time both Suman Tripura @ Sukhen Tripura and Kamal Tripura, the appellant herein, had reached there in a bike and forcibly abducted her. She raised alarm with loud voice, but, she was taken to the jungle. The appellant had left the place, but, Sukhen Tripura had kept her for 2 days when she was forced to make intercourse. However, this appeal will be confined to the offence as alleged to have been committed by the appellant, Kamal Tripura. 8. The only question remains as to whether the statement of the victim (PW-1) that she was forcibly abducted from the place where she was standing on the road side on that fateful date and time is trustworthy or not. From her deposition, it comes to fore that there was a grocery shop close to the place of occurrence where she was standing and also there was a school. It was a broad daylight i.e. at 11.00 a.m. In my opinion, the victim girl had raised her voice loudly, then, the grocery-shop-owner, whose name is Ajit Dey, must have heard her voice and also there were school students. Even on her way enroute to the jungle she did not try to raise alarm. So, her statements that she was forcibly abducted appears not to be convincing to this court and I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that she accompanied the appellant on her own wish and volition. 9. Accordingly, I find enough merit in this appeal to discharge the appellant from the charge levelled against him. Consequently, the conviction and sentence as returned have no force. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as recorded by learned Judge against the appellant, Kamal Tripura, stand set aside and quashed. 10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The appellant, Kamal Tripura, is hereby acquitted. It is informed that the appellant is on bail. Accordingly, he is discharged from his bail bond. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence as recorded by learned Judge against the appellant, Kamal Tripura, stand set aside and quashed. 10. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The appellant, Kamal Tripura, is hereby acquitted. It is informed that the appellant is on bail. Accordingly, he is discharged from his bail bond. The surety is also discharged from his liability. Send down the LCRs.