Ramkrishna Barman vs State Of Tripura

Heard Mr. D C Saha, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R C Debnath, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State-respondent.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-9-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in Sessions Trial (W/S) No.41 of 2013 convicting him U/s 457/376(1) IPC and sentencing him to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 457 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to suffer a rigorous imprisonment of six months and another ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 476(1) IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on 29-12-2012, the prosecutrix was sleeping at her dwelling hut, the appellant at about 12 midnight forcibly broke the door and entered the dwelling hut and committed rape upon her by pressing a cloth on her mouth and thereafter he fled away. At that time, her husband was not in their hut. The incident was immediately reported by her to her husband PW.1 and other relatives. On 30-10-2012, i.e. the next date, the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-charge of the Melaghar Police Station, which was registered as Melaghar Police Station FIR No.196/2012 under Sections 457/376(1) IPC against the appellant. After investigating the case, the I.O submitted a charge sheet against the appellant to face the trial. On receipt of the charge sheet by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura, the case was committed by him to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura for trial. The trial Court, upon receipt of the charge sheet, framed the charge under Sections 457/376(1) IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited some 8 documents including seizure memo. After examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant was convicted by the trial Court under the aforesaid Sections of IPC and was sentenced to undergo the imprisonment and pay the fines as indicated earlier.

We have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence of the prosecution adduced in the course of trial. To start with, the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-8, has given clear-cut evidence against the appellant. According to her, while her husband went to the house of Samprai Debbarma to take Prasad(Offerings of Laxmi Puja), the appellant entered their house after breaking the door, caught hold of her hand, pressed her neck and thereafter committed rape upon her. She further deposed that she raised alarm and her sister-in-law Kanyati Debbarma(PW-9) came but by that time, the appellant had vanished. According to her, she narrated the incident to PW-9 whereafter she also went to the house of Samprai Debbarma (PW- 10), where her husband (PW-1) was paying a visit, to inform him about the rape committed upon her by the appellant. On reaching there, she accordingly informed her husband, who was with his friends, namely, Binode Debbarma(PW-2), Nakshatra Debbarma(PW-4) and Manoj Kr. Debbarma(PW-3) at that time, about the incident. Her husband and his friends then went to search for the appellant but could not find him. They, however, managed to find bi-cycle of the appellant. She testified that the appellant was known to her earlier as he used to do agricultural work in her locality. Bishu Kr. Debbarma (PW-6) wrote the ejahar upon which she put her signature. The ejahar is marked as Exhibit-1 and the signature is marked as Exhibit-1/1. She was also medically examined and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. After reading and re-reading the deposition of the prosecutrix in its entirety, we are of the firm view that there is a ring of truth in her testimony. Moreover, the cross-examination of PW-8 does not bring out anything to discredit her testimony.

In addition to the above, the statement of PW-8, i.e. the prosecutrix has been fully corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and her husband i.e. PW.1 on all fours. The cross-examination of these witnesses also could not be shaken in any manner by defense. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned trial Court in convicting the appellant. The trial court has rightly convicted the appellant U/s 457/376(1) IPC. The sentences imposed by the trial court are also just and proportionate to the offences proved against the appellant.

For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal has no merit, and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is directed serve out the remaining period of the sentences so imposed upon him. If and when the fines imposed by the trial court are paid by the appellant, the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix. Transmit the L C record forthwith.