MONGAL DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are tied up together for disposal by a common judgment as by means of those appeals the judgment of the trial court is under challenge. The one appeal has been filed by the convict whereas the other appeal being Crl. A. No. 05 of 2012 has been filed by the victim being aggrieved by inadequacy of the sentence. For purpose of convenience, the convict is referred to as the appellant for Crl. A. No. 16 of 2011. The appellant has challenged by means of his appeal the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.04.2011 delivered in Sessions Trial 65(NT/K) of 2010 by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 417 of the I.P.C. for cheating the victim, PW -1 by way of having the sexual intercourse on promise of marriage and later on, refusing to marry her. The appellant has been sentenced as consequence of that conviction to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ -(Rupees one lakh), in default to payment of fine, to suffer 4(four) months imprisonment with a direction that fine money if realised is to be paid to the victim as compensation.

(2.) AT the instance of the victim, Manu P.S. case No. 42 of 2010 under Sections 376 and 417 of the I.P.C. was registered and taken up for investigation, as by a written Ejahar it had been disclosed that on assurance of marriage, the appellant on 30.12.2009 brought her to Panisagar and on the following day, she was taken to his relative's house at Agartala. There had been negotiations of marriage during that time. It has been stated that the accused person and the victim resided in the relative's house and had 'cohabitation'. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 376(1) and 417 of the I.P.C. Having the case committed to the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar the charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 376(1) and 417 of the I.P.C. to which the appellant pleaded total innocence and claimed to face the trial.

(3.) MR . A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the essential ingredient of dishonest intention from the outset is totally absent in the evidence. That apart, two sets of witnesses have clearly surfaced. Their statements are poised irreconcilably and mutually destructive as regards the marriage in terms of the customs prevalent in the Rupini Community and as such, the benefit must go to the appellant.