PAPPAN ACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Gouranga Acharjee was charged for committing rape of a minor girl [hereinafter referred to as the victim for protecting her identity] under Section 376(1) of the IPC and he was separately charged for committing offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter, referred to as the POCSO Act. By the judgment dated 14.07.2015 delivered in Case No. Special (POCSO) 0000001/15 by the Special Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, he was convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

(2.) Pursuant to the said conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulation under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 but no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 376(1) of the IPC in view of the provision of Section 42 of the POCSO Act which provides that when for the same offence one accused is convicted under any Section of the IPC and simultaneously under any Section of the POCSO Act, then, the sentence be imposed under the Section which carries greater degree of punishment on the accused person. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence are questioned in this appeal.

(3.) The prosecution against the appellant has been launched when the Officer-in-Charge Dharmanagar Police Station, Dharmanagar received a written complaint [Exbts.2, 8 and 10] from one Gouranga Acharjee [PW-2] stating that his daughter [the victim] who was aged about sixteen years two months had been raped by the appellant sometime in the end of the month of Baisakha of 1420 BS taking the advantage of his and his wife's absence from their house. But the family members could not sense anything about the incident for long, but on observing the changing physical condition of their daughter, they enquired when the victim stated the name of the accused who had forcible intercourse with her. The victim had also stated that the appellant threatened the victim that if anything is disclosed, she would be killed or driven away from the village.