True Court CopyTM


Crl. A. (J) 30 of 2018

Decided On: 01.04.2021

Appellants: Joubansen Tripura Vs. Respondent: The State of Tripura

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, C.J. and Arindam Lodh


Arindam Lodh, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1973 by the convict appellant against the judgment of sentence and order of conviction dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, South Tripura, Belonia in case No. Special 07 (POCSO) of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for LIFE which shall mean the remainder of his natural life and also shall pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (for short POCSO) Act, 2012.

2. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Additional PP appearing for the respondent.

3. The prosecution case, as depicted by the learned Special Judge, is reproduced here-in-below:

"Smt. Darbarani Tripura, the wife of Joubansen Tripura had withdrawn from the society of Joubansen Tripura two years back as per their social custom. But her victim daughter, aged 12 years used to reside with Joubansen Tripura and Joubansen started committing sexual intercourse with victim daughter and it continued for about three months. Because of threat of Joubansen initially her victim daughter did not divulge such fact to anybody, but ultimately divulged such fact to Darbarani. Now, Darbarani took up the matter with the local leading people.

On this factual matrix Darbarani Tripura lodged ejahar with O/C Belonia Women P.S. on 20.09.2016 which was registered as Belonia Women P.S. Case No. 64/16 under Section 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act".

4. During investigation the investigating officer examined as many as 21 witnesses, recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. conducted medical examination of the victim, arrested the accused-appellant and collected various material objects and filed charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 376(2)(i)(n) and 506 of the IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On receipt of the charge-sheet, charge was framed under section 376(2)(f)(i)(n) of IPC and under Section 6(n) of the POCSO Act, 2012 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses including the victim and exhibited 10 documents. After completion of recording of prosecution evidences, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he repeated the plea of his innocence and denied to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Argument was heard. The learned Special Judge having considered the evidences and materials on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforestated. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this court.

6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the prosecution case was doubtf........