UTTAM SUTRADHAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under Sec. 376 (I) IPC and sentenced to seven years with fine and a default stipulation. At the Bar there was no controversy with regard to the fact that the appellant has in fact completed his sentence. Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, learned counsel for the appellant, however, sought to press the appeal on merits seeking acquittal and, therefore, we heard the parties at length.

(2.) The primary contention on behalf of the appellant is that the witness being dumb, no oath having been administered to her, cross-examination has not been possible causing serious prejudice to the appellant. The deposition of the prosecutrix, therefore, cannot be completely relied upon in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the alternative, it was submitted that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult and merely because the relationship may not have fructified into matrimonial relations, will not make the offence under Sec. 376(1) of IPC.

(3.) Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that the victim may have been dumb but she gave sufficient indication in the Court, by signs and gestures, pointing towards the appellant suggesting that her pregnancy was attributable due to him. He also pointed out that the child born, was sent to the orphanage.