SAJIT DEBNATH @ SANJIT DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questions the judgment and order dated 04.01.2008 as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura in case No. S.T.13 (NT/KMP)/2006 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of pay fine, to suffer further R.I for two months.

(2.) The essential fact may briefly be introduced at the outset. In the written Ejahar (Exbt-4) one Ranu Debnath, mother of the prosecutrix complained that while she was enjoying the picnic along with her other friends she went to bring some salt from the appellant's house. Except the appellant there was none in the house at that point of time and taking the advantage of the situation the appellant hugged the prosecutrix and raped her forcibly. Even thereafter the prosecutrix enjoyed the picnic without flutter, out of fear and shy. Thereafter, the appellant tried to abuse the prosecutrix on promise of marrying her and on several times the appellant enjoyed sex with her in the vacant house. One day the complainant found her daughter in a tense mood, she asked what did happen. The prosecutrix informed her that the appellant was unwilling to marry her and she was being pressurized to abort the pregnancy. It has been stated in the Ejahar that the prosecutrix comes of a very poor family and the local people created pressure upon the complainant to conciliate the matter and threatened them in various ways. Upon this complaint, Ambassa Police Station registered it as the Ambassa P.S. Case No.32 of 2005 under Section 376/506 of the I.P.C and the investigation was taken up. On completion of the investigation the charge sheet was filed against the appellant and as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the same was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kamalpur, North Tripura framed the following charge:

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the prosec-ution adduced as many as 12 witnesses and admitted in the evidence some documents (Exbt.1 to Exbt.10).