DINESH DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 09.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(First Track Court), Kailashahar, North Tripura, incase No. S.T. 65 (NT/K) of 2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused appellant guilty of coordinating offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (rupees three thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer S.I. for two months. Heard learned counsel, Mr. R. Datta for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent.

(2.) Prosecution case, so far brought on record, is that on 06.07.2007, a Friday, at noon time, Kumari Sabita Das (P.W. 1) (actual name kept withheld), aged about 14 (fourteen) years, a resident of Gakulnagar Colony under Manu PS of North Tripura District, daughter of P.Ws. 2 and 3, was instructed by her father (P.W. 3) to bring some iron nails(in Bengali called as 'parek') on purchase from Manubazar for some carpentry work in their house, and accordingly Sabita (hereinafter mentioned as 'victim prosecutrix') went to Manubazar market, purchased the iron nails, and thereafter was returning home. On way to home, at about 1.00/1.30 pm, when she reached Baliapara, accused appellant, Dinesh Debbarma, a resident of village-Manu Block Tilla, caught her and forcefully dragged her away from the road inside the jungle in a lunga land, kept her mouth pressed, and thereafter undressed her and forcefully committed rape on her. After committing rape the accused threatened her and then left the place. Thereafter, she came out of the jungle and on the road and got Subhash Das (P.W. 5) of her village and narrated the incident to him and sought his help for going to her home. At that time two other tribal persons were passing through the road and Subhash Das instructed her to go home with those two tribal persons, and accordingly she returned home with them. After returning home she narrated the incident to her parents (P.Ws. 2 and 3) and they first took her to the party office at Manu and some people of that party office advised them to lodge a complaint at PS, and accordingly they went to Manu PS and Sabita narrated the incident to the O/C. of the PS, who recorded the same as F.I.R., and accordingly registered Manu PS Case No. 29 of 2007 under Section 376 of IPC and SI, Kamal Kar Chowdhury (P.W. 7) was entrusted with the charge of investigation, who on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel, Mr. Datta appearing for the appellant has submitted that the accused could not engage a lawyer of his own and an advocate as amicus curiae was engaged on his behalf, who conducted the case casually and also cross-examined the witnesses very superficially. He has further contended that the material witnesses, i.e. two tribal persons, who accompanied the prosecutrix to her house, have not been examined. The shopkeeper from which the prosecutrix alleged to have purchased the iron nails has also not been examined. Except P.W. 5 none else found the prosecutrix to go to the market as alleged by the prosecution. So an adverse inference may be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of those material witnesses.