NARAYAN MAJUMDAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State-Respondent.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.05.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in connection with the case No. ST 14 (ST/U) of 2005 convicting the Appellant to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo further R.I. for 3 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.

(3.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that one Pratap Chandra Lodh lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of R. K. Pur P. S. against the accused Narayan Majumder alleging that he committed rape on his minor daughter on 08.04.2004 in a deep jungle and prior to that the accused took his daughter from his house in a motor bike and after commission the offence of rape he left her at Taibandal Road and thereafter on seeing her, one Shyamal Majumder rescued her. Having reported by the girl, the complainant brought the matter to the notice of the local respectable persons and sought their help for resolving the matter but the attempt to resolve the matter was failed, for which the aforesaid complaint was lodged with the O.C., R. K. Pur Police Station. The police registered a case being R. K. Pur P. S. Case No. 198 of 2002 under Section 376 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-accused. The learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura read out and explained to the accused the charge brought against him and framed charge under Sections 376/511, I.P.C. against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The Prosecution examined 14 witnesses including the victim girl where the defence examined 4 witnesses including the appellant-accused himself. On the basis of the materials made available and the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused as stated above.