Bijan Nath And Ors vs State Of Tripura

Arindam Lodh, J

[1] Heard Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Sumit Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent

[2] This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No. S.T. 30 (NT/D) of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellants had been convicted and sentenced under Section-366 of IPC to suffer RI for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each with default stipulation.

[3] Briefly stated, the prosecution is rooted to the complaint dated 25.02.2011 lodged by one Mandarung Reang, aged about 20 years, stating inter alia that on 24.02.2011 at about 9-9.30 am Smt. Lalita Reang of Satnala, Chandrasingh Para made a phone call to her younger sister asking her to make a visit to her house and on that day itself, she had visited their house in the evening where she was pressurized by Lalita and her husband to go to Haryana against her will along with two persons of Haryana, who were not familiar to her. On 25.02.2011, at about 9-9.30 am, she was forced by the appellant along with Jagadish Chandra Nath and other two persons of Haryana to board in a vehicle (commander jeep). On the way, the vehicle was detained by the police and thereafter, she came to learn that Smt. Lalita Reang was trafficking her to Haryana in order to give her marriage with a person of Haryana at the instigation of Sri Bijan Nath and Jagadish Chandra Nath.

[4] An FIR was accordingly registered. Being endorsed, the Investigating Officer started investigation, examined the available witnesses including the driver of the vehicle. After completion of investigation, I.O. submitted the charge-sheet under Section-366 of the IPC and Section-5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Being committed, the learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellants, namely, Bijan Nath and Smt. Lalita Reang to which they claimed their innocence.

[5] During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including the complainant and the appellants herein were examined under Section-313 of Cr. Pc. After recording of evidence and having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, learned Sessions Judge convicted both Bijan Nath and Lalita Reang under Section-366 of the IPC, but, acquitted them from the charge under Section-5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Accordingly, both the accused persons were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 (ten) years under Section-366 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for the same offence with default stipulation. Since allegations were not proved against the accused, namely, Jagadish Nath and Santosh Das, they were acquitted from the charges leveled against them.

[6] Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred this appeal before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, it reveals from the order dated 21.11.2019 that the appellant No. 1, Bijan Nath expired on 31.03.2018 during his treatment at AGMC & GBP Hospital while he was undergoing the sentence.

[7] Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The statement of the victim girl itself reveals that she boarded the vehicle on her own will and volition. She was boarded at Satnala where she could raise alarm but she did not do so.

[8] Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel relied upon the evidence of PW-6, the driver of the vehicle. PW-6 in his deposition has stated that in the year 2011 at about 7 O'clock in the morning he started from Dasda towards Kanchanpur with passengers in his commander jeep bearing registration No. TR-02-3722. He further deposed that three passengers including two female boarded in his vehicle. After he crossed Satnala market, two more passengers were boarded in his vehicle, who were Hindi speaking persons of another State. After he reached the tri-junction at Kanchanpur, he stopped his vehicle seeing the police vehicle and following the direction of the police officer he entered into the police station where he came to know that women traffickers were travelling in his vehicle and the two women in his vehicle were being trafficked by them. One of the women was about 18 years of old and another woman was about 25 years of old. On the basis his submission, we have perused the other evidences which are surveyed as follows:

[9] PW-1, Sri Pradip Chakma has deposed that he was a student on 25.02.2011. During his examination he was declared hostile.

[10] PW-2, Sri Maitaram Reang, has stated that he did not know anything.

[11] PW-3, Sri Ramguna Reang, was also declared hostile.

[12] PW-4, Sri Tapan Das, deposed that on 25.02.2011 he was posted as ASI of police at Kanchanpur police station and he is also a seizure witness of cash Rs. 4,305/- from the possession of accused Mohan Prakash and Rs. 25,010/- from the possession of Dharampaul Singh at the police station.

[13] PW-5, Sri Bidhan Nath, who is also a seizure witness being a police personnel of Kanchanpur police station.

[14] PWs-7, 8 & 9 did not reveal anything material to the case of the prosecution.

[15] PW-10, Sri Jayanta Das, is the investigating officer of the case.

[16] The most important witnesses are PW-6 and PW-11. PW-11 is the complainant, the victim girl. She deposed that one day Lalita Reang over telephone called her at about 9-9.30 am and asked her to go to her house. At about 12 hours, she went to her house and there she found two male persons, who used to speak in Hindi. She further deposed that Lalita approached her with a proposal to marry one of the persons in lieu of Rs. 50,000/- to which she refused, but, they forcefully took her in a commander jeep and on their way towards Kanchanpur, the vehicle was detained by the police personnel and she was taken to the police station where she came to learn that she was being trafficked by these persons.

[17] We have already discussed the evidence of PW-6 and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. for the State-respondent submits that prosecution has been able to prove the fact that the victim girl, the complainant herein, was induced by the appellants to board the vehicle. We have considered the evidence and materials on record and also the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

[18] PW-11 has stated in her evidence that from the house of Lalita Reang itself, she was forcefully abducted. She used to reside at Jariham Natun Para under Kanchanpur police station. It is found that the neighbouring witnesses of the appellant did not say anything regarding her forceful abduction. Even from the evidence of PW-11 it reveals that she boarded the vehicle at Jariham Natun Para and on her way to a long distance at the tri-junction she did not raise any alarm to draw attention of the other persons. Even after seeing the police she did not raise alarm to stop the vehicle, it was the police personnel who detained the vehicle. From the evidence of PW-6, the driver of the vehicle, it is has come to light that the complainant did not divulge anything to the driver that she was forcefully boarded in the vehicle. Further, the version of the driver that two female including the victim girl (PW-11) boarded his vehicle while he was proceeding towards Kanchanpur when other passengers were also there remains uncontroverted.

[19] Having considered all these material irregularities, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the ingredients of Section-366 of IPC. Accordingly, we are unable to agree with the findings as returned by the learned Sessions Judge that the appellants had committed offence under Section-366 of the IPC.

[20] In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot sustain, and accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 09.03.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Case No. S.T. 30 (NT/D) of 2011 is hereby set aside and quashed. The appellant No. 2, namely, Smt. Lalita Reang, shall be released forthwith, if she is not wanted in any other case.

[21] It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant No. 1 has already been died during the pendency of this appeal.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.