Tikendra Debbarma vs State Of Tripura

This appeal is filed by the accused to challenge the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur by which he is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 7(seven) years and 6(six) months respectively in addition to being ordered to pay fine.

Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that the victim lady was a widow. On the night of the incident she had gone to attend a wedding ceremony. While returning with her relatives including the accused, the others went separately and the accused and the victim were left alone. The accused dragged her to a nearby school building and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She screamed upon which PW-1, Laxman Debbarma who lived nearby, rushed to the site and had the victim released. According to the victim-complainant, the accused had bitten her on her lips and on her other parts of the body while committing the said offence. The incident allegedly took place at night of 06.08.2016. An F.I.R. was lodged before the nearby police station at about 4 o'clock in the evening the next day. Charge was framed against the accused for allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 323 of IPC.

The victim lady was examined as PW-2. In a deposition she had stated that she lived with her five children, her husband having died earlier. On the date of the incident at about 12 o'clock at night she was returning home along with the accused Tikendra Debbarma and two other persons namely Laxman Debbarma and Ajoy Debbarma after attending a marriage ceremony in their village. After some time Laxman and Ajoy both went to their houses. She along with the accused were proceeding towards their houses. The accused forcibly took her to a school field of an Anganwadi School. He threw her on the ground in a ditch. He bit her on many places including her face. Upon hearing her screams Laxman Debbarma came there. Initially the accused did not release her even after Laxman arrived but after ejaculation he left the place. Next day at about 4 o'clock in the evening F.I.R. was lodged. She was examined by the Medical Officer at the District Hospital, Tepania. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate, Udaipur under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

In the cross-examination she cited the reason of physical pain for lodging the F.I.R. the next day. She denied that she was involving the accused falsely on account of political rivalry.

Sri Laxman Debbarma was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 06.08.2016 he along with Tikendra Debbarma, Ajoy Debbarma and the victim were returning home at about 12 o'clock after attending a marriage ceremony. He and Ajoy went to their houses. Tikendra and the victim were going to their respective houses. After some time he heard the cries of the victim. He rushed to the spot and found her in the field of Anganwadi School near his house. The accused had removed her clothes and she was wearing only a petticoat and accused was raping her. Upon being repeatedly told he released her. He accompanied the victim to her house.

In the cross-examination he agreed that in statement before the Magistrate he had not specifically stated that he had found the accused actually committing rape on the victim.

One Smt. Kanan Debbarma, mother of Laxman Debbarma, was examined as PW-3. Her deposition is useful only for the limited purpose of noting that her son Laxman Debbarma was also known as Peltu. This is relevant because in the F.I.R. the victim has referred to this person as Peltu Debbarma whereas in the deposition she referred to him as Laxman Debbarma and it was in this name that the deposition of this witness as PW-1 was recorded.

The victim was examined by Dr. Tani Bhattacharjee, PW-12 to whom she had given a history of being raped between the night of 06.08.2016 and 07.08.2016 at about 12 o'clock at the Anganwadi centre. Upon physical examination she had found reddish bruises over both the breasts and left corner of the lips stated to be bite marks. She found that the injuries were recent. She had collected the vaginal swab and urethral swab of the victim. The injuries on the body according to her were suggestive of the sexual assault.

The physical examination of the accused was carried out by Dr. Dhruba Das, PW-21. He did not find the accused incapable of committing sexual intercourse.

One Sri Subhankar Nath, an officer from Forensic Science Laboratory was examined as PW-19. He produced the FSL report of the various articles seized by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation as Exhibit-12. The report established the presence of semen on various articles such as the vaginal swab, the urethral swab collected from the victim's body, her petticoat and her blouse. The DNA testing was also carried out with the aid of the blood sample of the accused which duly matched.

On the basis of such evidence on record, the learned Judge held the accused guilty of committing offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 323 of IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are multiple contradictions in the prosecution version. Even if the factum of sexual intercourse can be stated to have been established, there was total absence of any forcible act on the part of the accused. In other words, she submitted that the possibility that the sexual act was consensual cannot be ruled out. She submitted that there was unexplained delay in filing the F.I.R.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment under challenge and submitted that in view of overwhelming evidence of the victim girl duly supported by the PW-1 the appeal may be dismissed.

As noted the victim girl has given a clear version of returning from a marriage ceremony late at night along with other relatives. Initially she was accompanied by three male members. Two of them separated out when their houses came. The accused and the victim were left alone at which point the accused dragged her forcibly to a nearby Anganwadi School compound, threw her in the ditch and raped her. Hearing her shouts, PW-1 arrived at the scene and ensured her release. She had also stated that the accused had bitten her at several places on her body.

This version of the victim is duly corroborated by other evidence on record. PW-1, Laxman Debbarma, was one of the persons accompanying the victim while she was returning home on the night of the incident. The incident took place near his house. According to his deposition he had heard her shouts and, therefore, rushed to the place and found that the accused was raping her. So much eye witness accounts itself would be sufficient to convict the accused. In addition we also have the medical and forensic evidence for support. Dr. Tani Bhattacharjee who had examined the victim girl had not only recorded the history of the victim being raped between the night of 06.08.2016 and 07.08.2016 as given by the victim, she had also found that the victim girl was carrying recent injuries on her lips and on her breasts which could be from bite marks. The forensic evidence also lends considerable support to the prosecution version. Various samples collected by the Investigating Agency such as, the vaginal and urethral swabs from the victim and her clothes revealed the presence of human semen. The semen matched with the DNA of the accused. The fact that the accused did have sexual intercourse with the victim girl on the night of 06.08.2016 is thus proved through scientific evidence also, not that going by the depositions of the victim and PW-1, there could be any doubt in anybody's mind about this fact.

In that view of the matter, only argument to be dealt with is whether such sexual intercourse was consensual. There is absolutely no reason or counter evidence to discard the clear version of the victim girl. She had stated that she was dragged, forced into a ditch and raped by the accused during which act he also bit her at several parts of the body. The bite marks are recorded by the doctor who examined the victim. There is no reason cited by the defence why the victim should falsely implicate the accused. The version of the victim is duly corroborated by PW-1 who had rushed to the site upon hearing the shouts of the victim. The fact that PW-1, Laxman Debbarma, is same as Peltu is also brought on record by his mother, PW-3. The victim had also referred to the said person being one of the persons accompanying her while she was returning from the marriage ceremony. The incident took place close to the house of Peltu alias Laxman Debbarma. His presence upon hearing the shouts of the victim, therefore, cannot be doubted. The defence has completely failed to explain the presence of the semen of the accused from the private parts of the victim and her clothes as well as the bite marks on her body parts. The filing of F.I.R. at about 4 o'clock next day when the incident allegedly took place at the midnight can hardly be stated to be a delayed F.I.R.

In the result, I find no merits in the appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

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