SUJIT DEY, WEST TRIPURA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the convict is directed against the judgment dated 09 -01 -2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai in Case No. S.T. 22(WT/K) of 2005 whereby the appellant Sujit Dey was convicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years for commission of offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC. He was further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - (rupees three thousand) in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 6(six) months with regard to offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) COMPLAINT was filed by Sri Braja Lal Chakraborty, father of the prosecutrix, with the Teliamura police station on 23 - 11 -2004 to the effect that on 20 -11 -2004, the accused appellant had enticed the minor daughter (prosecutrix), aged about 14 years and taken her somewhere. On this basis, the case was registered, matter was investigated and finally, police report was filed against the present appellant and one Sri Sujit Das of having kidnapped the prosecutrix. A charge of rape was levelled against the present appellant and Sujit Das was accused of having abetted the present appellant in the commission of the offence. After charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Sujit Das was acquitted whereas the appellant was convicted as detailed hereinabove. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) IF the statement of the prosecutrix made before the Magistrate is read, it is clear that she had stated that she had voluntarily gone with the appellant -accused. She states that nobody took her forcibly. She also states that she and the accused resided together as husband and wife for 12 days and had physical relationship on two of those dates. Though now the prosecution wants to make out a case that the prosecutrix was forcibly taken away and was subjected to rape, the fact of the matter is that the prosecutrix was never forcibly taken away or enticed. She went of her own accord. This is also obvious from the fact that she stayed in various houses at Tuichindrai, Champaknagar, Champamura and Teliamura. Her statement was recorded before the police. She states that it was a tutored statement. However, most importantly, she does not state that she was forced or threatened to give that statement. Before the Magistrate, she could have easily told the truth, but she preferred to make the statement in which she has stated that she went of her own accord with the accused and had physical relation with him. Therefore, in my view, there is no manner of doubt that the prosecutrix went voluntarily with the accused and the sexual relations were consensual in nature.