PABAN BISWAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22. 7. 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in ST 96 (WT/a) of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. It was also directed therein that fine money, if realized, should be paid to the victim by way of compensation.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that the informant, Smt. Maya Debnath lodged a written complaint to the Officer In-charge, Airport Police Station alleging that on 29. 6. 2001 at about 5. 30 p. m. , when her minor daughter Ratna Debnath, (hereinafter called as "prosecutrix"), went to fetch water from a nearby stream, the appellant dragged her to the jungle, gagged her mouth and committed rape on her and after commission of rape, took her to the house of his maternal uncle and thence to the house of his sister to create pressure upon the prosecutrix for marriage. The appellant is alleged to have threatened the prosecutrix that if she did not agree to his proposal for marriage, he would kill her father, namely Gopal Debnath. On 1. 7. 2001, the prosecutrix managed to escape from the clutch of the appellant and reached the house of her aunt, namely, Kamala Debnath (P. W. 3), who thereafter brought her to the house of her parents. It is the further case of the prosecution that after returning home, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her mother (P. W. 1), whereafter her mother i. e. the informant and her father informed the incident to the village leaders for taking appropriate action and that when the village leaders did nothing, the informant lodged the FIR, whereupon the police registered Airport P. S. case No. 40 of 2001 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) AFTER registration of the case, the Airport Police Station started investigation of the case. In the course of investigation, the police examined the available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. , got the prosecutrix medically examined and produced her before the Judicial Magistrate who recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C. , and after completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 376 IPC. It is also stated by the prosecution that the accused appellant could not be arrested despite rigorous efforts made by them as he was absconding. Since the offence alleged against the accused appellant was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to that court for trial. On receipt of the case record and after hearing the learned P. P. and the learned Counsel for the defence, the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala found a prima facie case and thereupon framed the charge against the appellant under Section 376 (1) IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge so framed and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter proceeded with the trial of the case. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellant, but no evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. The defence taken by the appellant was that of total denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment found the appellant guilty of the charge and returned the verdict of conviction and sentence as noted earlier.