MANGAL DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants were charged under Section 376D and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in short, POCSO Act separately and after a regular trial, they were convicted under Section 376D of the IPC and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act by the judgment dated 25.02.2016 delivered in case No. Special (POCSO) 28 of 2015 by the Special Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur [as it then was].

(2.) Pursuant to the said conviction under Section 376D of the IPC, by the order dated 25.02.2016, the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years, which is the minimum imprisonment as prescribed and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation but no separate sentence was awarded against the conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The said judgment and order dated 25.02.2016 are challenged in this appeal.

(3.) In the complaint filed by one Sunil Debbarma [PW-3], it was revealed that when his daughter [the name is withheld for protecting her identity] was returning home on 18.09.2014 at about 4 p.m. in the afternoon from the house of informants paternal uncle namely Annabahadur Debbarma [PW-8] situated at Masimog para, the appellants namely Mangal Debbarma and Falakathar Debbarma restrained his daughter, gagged her mouth and took her inside the jungle (forest) of Masimog para and raped her. His daughter came back home and informed the entire incident to the informant. In the complaint [Exbt.2] it has been also stated that the delay caused in lodging the ejahar was for apprehension of social stigma. On the said complaint dated 24.09.2014, Ambassa P.S. Case No.48/14 under section 376D of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, the police report was filed in the court of the Special Judge (POCSO) and the charge was framed as stated, but those were denied by the appellants claiming to face the trial.