RAKESH KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 22.09.2017 wherein he was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for the offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). By the same judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellant from the charge levelled against him under Section 376 of IPC.

(3.) The prosecution case was launched on the basis of a complaint lodged by the prosecutrix wherein she stated that on 01.09.2014, she had boarded one train from Badharghat to return to her house. Just after her boarding the appellant had tried to contact with her over her mobile. Initially, she responded to those calls. However, she had switched off her mobile later on. The appellant wanted to know about her whereabouts. It is further stated in the complaint that when she got down from the train at Manu station she had seen the appellant at the station. The appellant had broken her conch and had slapped and scolded her. Thereafter, she was asked to walk on foot and while she was walking the appellant was proceeding ahead of her. Reaching at Manu, she boarded an auto along with the appellant. She was threatened that she would be killed if she raises any alarm. She was taken to a sweet shop where she had eaten 'puri' and vegetable with tea. Thereafter, she boarded a bus along with the appellant on their journey to Kumarghat to purchase conch from the market. Thereafter she was again taken to a sweet shop and she was offered tea and sweet but she disagreed. At that time, the appellant had scolded her. Thereafter the appellant went to a 'chanachur' shop which was situated adjacent to the sweet shop where he had consumed liquor. Thereafter they came to Nalkata where the appellant after getting down from the bus had pressed her mouth and took her to his room. Inside the room the appellant had fastened her mouth by a 'gamcha' (napkin) forcibly. Thereafter, the appellant had fastened her hands as well as legs with a jute made rope lying in his room. He cut down the right sided hair of the victim with a scissor. Her wearing apparels were put off and raped her. Later on, he left her and was allowed to wear her wearing apparels. Subsequently, returning back to her house she narrated the fact to her husband.