JEFFREY HRANGKHAL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the convict, herein after referred to as the appellant, under section 374(2) of the CrPC challenging the legality of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence respectively dated 31.10.2017 and 1.12.2017 delivered in case No. ST(T-1) 41 of 2014 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.5 West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and pursuant thereto he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) The root of the prosecution can be located in the complaint filed by one Smt. Rani Rupini (PW-2) revealing that her elder daughter aged about 13 years, [the name is withheld for purpose of protecting the identity of the victim] was engaged at Immanuel Hostel, Khamtingbari as cook. On 25.06.2013 at about 1200 hours in the noon, her daughter suddenly came back from the hostel and informed her that from 22.06.2013 to 24.06.2013 during her stay in the hostel everyday at about 9-10 pm, the hostel supervisor namely Jeffrey Hrangkhal (the appellant) used to take her daughter to his room and got his body massaged. The appellant raped her daughter against her will for four times. The said complaint (Exbt-1) was received by Jirania Police Station on 26.06.2013 and based thereon, Jirania PS case NO.62/2013 under Section 376 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the final police report chargesheeting the appellant was submitted by the police. Having taken cognizance, the police papers were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, West Tripura Agartala and the case was re-registered as case No. ST (T-1) 41 of 2014. But for trial, the said case was transferred to the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, court No.4 West Tripura, Agartala (the trial judge, hereinafter). The trial judge had framed the charge against the appellant on 21.08.2014 under section 376 (2)(i) of the IPC for committing rape on the victim who was under 16 years of age. The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

(3.) In order to substantiate the charge the prosecution adduced as many as 10 witnesses including the victim (PW-3) and the medical officer who examined the victim (PW-6). That apart, 6 documentary evidence (Exbt-1 to 6) were admitted in the evidence at the instance of the prosecution. After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC to have his response on the incriminating materials those appeared in the evidence. The appellant had reiterated his plea of innocence stating that the evidence incriminating him are concocted and unreliable. Having appreciated the argument placed by the State and the accused, the trial judge returned the impugned finding of conviction having observed inter alia as follows: