RAJESH Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this criminal appeal the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Sessions Trial Case No. 57(ST/U) of 2012 has been challenged by the appellant. Charges under Sections 376(1) and 417 of IPC were framed against the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and in the trial learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellant from the charge under Section 376(1) of IPC and found him guilty of the charge under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - (rupees twenty five thousand), in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for three months.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharji for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent. Prosecution case is that accused Bapi Saha alias Rajesh, a co -villager of the informant, Smti. Chanu Das(PW 1), giving false assurance of marriage pretended love with her daughter, the victim prosecutrix(name kept withheld), aged about sixteen years and at first on 17.09.2010, a day of Vijaya Dashami of Durgapuja, committed rape on the victim prosecutrix and thereafter also the accused appellant used to come to the house of the informant in the darkness of night and would take her daughter in the isolated place to the bank of the pond and committed rape on about four occasions and as a result the victim prosecutrix got pregnant and the pregnancy in the meantime matured for about three months. When the victim prosecutrix could understand that she got pregnant, she asked the accused to marry her but the accused was avoiding her saying that his parents had no consent to such marriage and therefore he was not in a position to marry her. It is alleged by the informant that the accused with the assurance of marriage on the pretext of love committed rape on her daughter and therefore by lodging FIR on 21.02.2011 before the O/C of R.K. Pur P.S. she prayed for justice.

(3.) IT is an undisputed fact that the victim prosecutrix was pregnant of about three/three and half months when the FIR was lodged on 21.02.2011 and during the course of investigation she delivered a female child and the unfortunate female child is living with her. Besides PWs 1 and 2 there are no other local people as a witness, examined by the prosecution, to prove the prosecution case.