LAWS(TRIP)-2019-7-9

DASHU RANJAN DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On July 18, 2019
Dashu Ranjan Debbarma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were charged under Sections 376(2)(g), 323 and 341 of the IPC and convicted under those charges by the judgment dated 11.06.2015 delivered in ST 52(WT/K) of 2012. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 11.06.2015 the convicts, the appellants herein, were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.3000/- with default stipulation for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. It has been directed that the sentences, as above, shall run concurrently in respect of the appellants, namely Infren Debbarman and Anup Debbarma and the sentences, as above, shall run consecutively in case of the appellant namely Dashu Ranjan Debbarma. The period of detention has been directed to be set off from the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The said judgment and order of conviction and sentence are challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution against the appellants was launched on the basis of the oral complaint (Ext.3 etc.) filed by one Malindra Debbarma (PW-7) disclosing that on 22.12.2010 when his wife (PW-6) and cousin sister (PW-5) were going along with him to see Tring festival in the ground of new Chanbari JB School situated as Tongbari (Ratanpur) under Khowai police station, and when they reached near the house of one Amarendra Debbarma, the appellants suddenly appeared and blocked their road and had started to beat the informant. To save him from the assault, the informant fled away leaving behind his wife and cousin sister. In a place, a little away from the place of occurrence, when he was waiting for his wife and sister. Then he heard a loud cry of his sister and wife. Desperately, he informed the incident to the people in the fair ground and went out to search his sister and wife with them. At about 11 o'clock at night, his sister was found in a rubber garden belonging to Nihar Debbarma of new Tongbari. She was found laying in "half-naked" condition. Her wearing apparel particularly the trouser was torn. She told them that three persons have raped her forcibly but till then, her wife could not be traced. Seeing them searching in the said rubber garden rigorously, one person had attempted to run away towards the jungle. The informant and his companions rushed after him and nabbed. He was Dashu Ranjan Debbarma, the appellant No.1. On being asked by the informant, he has admitted his guilt that he along with Infren Debbarma, the appellant No.2 and Anup Debbarma, the appellant No.3 had committed the rape on the informant's cousin sister [the name is withheld for protecting her identity]. The people accompanying the informant beat him out of anger but he had managed to give a slip. The whole night they searched for the wife of the informant but she could not be traced. On the following morning, she reached home and informed that on the previous night, the appellant had tried to grab and rape her but she was able to come out from their design. Somehow, she passed the night in the jungle by hiding herself.

(3.) Based on the said complaint which was recorded by Sanjay Das, a sub-Inspector of police (PW-15), on 22.12.2010, the Khowai P.S. case No.80/2010 under Sections 341, 325, 354, 376(2)(g) of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the police report was filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. sending up the appellants to face the trial. Since, the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the police papers were committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai, the jurisdictional sessions division. Having taken cognizance, the charges were framed against the appellants as stated above. The appellants pleaded innocence and claimed for trial.