ABDUL MATLIB Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Sessions trial No. 44(NT/D) 2008, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, framed charges against accused -petitioner Abdul Matlib @ Mati Miah for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(2.) IN course of trial prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove the charges and after closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused petitioner was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and in his turn he declined to adduce any defence evidence.

(3.) DEFENCE case so far suggested at the time of cross examination of P.Ws 1 and 2 is that the victim prosecutrix was mentally imbalanced and that she used to go inside the jungle with some young people and that the accused reported such facts to the informant and therefore, the informant got irritated and threatened to file a false case against the accused to teach him a good lesson and to refrain him from spreading defamatory statements in the name of victim prosecutrix. It is contended by the accused that the case was false.