RANJIT MALAKAR Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Sessions Trial Case No. 130 of 2010.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. Ratan Dutta for the appellant and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent. Prosecution case is that on or around 26.04.2005, the informant, i.e. the victim prosecutrix(name kept withheld), being very poor, went to local FCI go -down with a view to collect some rice from the floors of the go -down and at that time some young people and labourers forcefully took her on the backside of the go -down and committed rape on her. Out of them she could identify one Ranjit Namasudra and she could not identify the others. She did not disclose the fact to anybody because of shame and ignorance. Subsequently, she became pregnant and delivered a female child in the month of December. Her guardians enquired about the matter and tried to settle it. She took shelter of a Family Counseling Centre and thereafter on their advice she lodged the FIR on 17.02.2006.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel, Mr. Dutta for the appellant that the incident alleged to have occurred on 26.04.2005 but the FIR was lodged on 17.02.2006, i.e. almost about after ten months. The delay has not been explained. It was out and out a false FIR lodged against the accused appellant. He has further submitted that the FIR was lodged by the victim herself but her deposition is completely different to that of the allegation made in the FIR. She made a different statement under Section 164 of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate which has been marked as Exbt.A. So, implicit reliance on the statement of the victim prosecutrix cannot be placed to record a conviction.