SURANJOY REANG Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 374(2) of the CrPC by the convict, hereinafter as referred to the appellant, has questioned the legality of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.05.2018 delivered in case No. Special (POCSO) 9 of 2015 by the Special Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 341 and 366 of the IPC and under Section 5(g) of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (in short, POCSO Act). Pursuant to the said conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC. The appellant has been further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-with default stipulation for committing offence punishable under Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act which is punishable under Section 6 of the said Act. Further, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. Being aggrieved thereof, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) The genesis of the prosecution can be located in the complaint (Exbt-12) filed by one Pingtlaia Reang (PW-2) revealing that his daughter, aged about 14 years (the name of the victim is withheld in order to protect her identity), was coming back to home at Hajacherra Refugee camp on foot from Gachiram Bazar along the Anandabzar - Dasda Road in company of Tairai Reang, Dekhia Reang and Smt. Ramgaia Reang at about 9 o'clock at night. During that time, four unknown tribal youth at one point chased them and attempted to assault them. All of them ran away out of fear, but his daughter failed to flee to a safe zone. Three tribal youth had taken his daughter to south Gachiram para jungle and raped her there. Thereafter, they left her in the place of occurrence. Somehow, the victim came to her place of stay and on her version, the complaint was filed on 28.05.2013 to the Officer-in-Charge Anandabazaar Police Station. The victim was vulnerable. Based on the said complaint, Anandabazaar PS case No. 13/2013 under Sections 376(2)(1)/376(d) of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation.

(3.) On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted by the police chargesheeting the accused namely Suranjoy Reang (the appellant) Pranay Kanti Reang, Rajkumar Reang and Nanjirai Reang. After taking cognizance, the charge under Section 341 read with section 34 of the IPC, Section 366A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the IPC was framed on 27.05.2012. That apart, one alternative charge was framed under Section 5(g) of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 6 of the said Act read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant having pleaded innocence, denied the charge and claimed to be tried. It may be noted at this place that the accused persons namely (1) Pranay Kanti Reang (2) Nanjirai Reang and (3) Rajkumar Reang could not be brought to trial as they were absconding. However, they were declared as the proclaimed offenders by the Special Court on 16.04.2017. Therefore, the trial was confined in part to the appellant.