Tripura High Court
Smt. Rita Paul vs Sri Pintu Paul on 19 December, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL. A. 19 of 2014
Smt. Rita Paul,
wife of late Jubaraj Paul,resident of Paikhola,
P.O. Paikhola, P.S. Belonia, District- South Tripura
... Appellant
- Versus -
1. Sri Pintu Paul,
son of Ashutosh Paul,
2. Smt. Shilpi Paul,
wife of Madhu Sudhan Paul,
3. Smt. Chanu Rani Paul,
wife of late Jogesh Paul,
4. Smt. Minati Paul,
wife of Sri Samir Kanti Paul,
5. Smt. Basanti Debnath,
wife of late Gouranga Debnath,
6. Smt. Nilima Paul,
wife of Sri Narayan Paul,
7. Smt. Swapna Das
wife of Sri Ratan Das,
8. Smt. Parul Dey,
wife of late Manindra Dey,
- all are residents of Paikhola, P.O. Paikhola,
P.S. Belonia, District- South Tripura
9. The State of Tripura
...
Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioner : Mr. BN Majumder, Advocate.
For the respondent no.9 : Mr. RC Debnath, Addl. PP
For respondents no.1 to 8 : Mr. A. Das, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment and Order : 19.12.2017
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. BN Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. RC Debnath, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Crl.A. 19 of 2014 Page 1 of 6 respondent no.9 and Mr. A. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 8.
2. This is an appeal by the victim, whose name is withheld for protecting her identity, from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.07.2014 delivered in case no. S.T. 48(ST/B) of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Belonia.
3. The respondents no. 1 to 8 did not challenge the judgment of conviction and Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 8 has submitted that the fine which was imposed as sentence has already been paid by the respondents no. 1 to 8. This appeal is against the inadequate sentence.
4. Based on the written ejahar dated 15.01.2012 (Exhibit-1), the Belonia police station case no. 08 of 2012 was registered under Section 376/417/313/385/342/34 of the IPC. The allegations against the accused persons are that the accused namely Pintu Paul having been aided by the other accused persons and creating the impression that there was a valid marriage, had sexual intercourse with the victim. The said complaint was filed after the victim at the instance of the said accused person namely Pintu Paul had terminated her pregnancy and when she found that the said accused person was avoiding her. On the impression that the said accused person will not marry her, she had lodged the said complaint against the respondents no. 1 to 8. Against all the persons, Crl.A. 19 of 2014 Page 2 of 6 the charge sheet was filed for committing offence punishable under Section 376(1) and under sections 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, but at the time of framing the charge, the charge under Section 376(1) of the IPC was framed only against the accused, Pintu Paul and against the other accused persons, the charge was framed under Section 342 and 323 read with section 34 of the IPC.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the charge examined as many as 24 witnesses including the victim (PW-
1) and introduced 26 documentary evidence including the forensic report etc. After the closure of the evidence by the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to have their say on the incriminating materials those surfaced in the evidence led by the prosecution. The petitioners denied the incriminating materials and renewed their stand of innocence. On appreciation of the evidence by the judgment dated 22.07.20014, the Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura found no material against the said accused person (PW-1) to convict him under Section 376(1) of the IPC on observing as under:
"The victim is an adult and young widow and in such situation of this case offence of rape is not established since the victim is consenting party and her consent was obtained by the accused by giving false assurance of marriage, so in such circumstances of this case though the accused has committed no offence under Section 376(1) of IPC but he is found guilty for commission of offence under section 417 of IPC"Crl.A. 19 of 2014 Page 3 of 6
6. Thereafter, having heard the learned counsel and the accused person as well, the trial court imposed the sentence of fine to the extent of Rs.50,000/- instead of imprisonment. The said judgment of conviction has not been assailed neither by the State nor by the convict. It further appears that the other accused persons were acquitted from the charges framed against them under sections 342/323/34 of IPC. By means of this appeal, even though the conviction under section 417 of IPC appears to have been challenged.
7. Mr. BN Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the sentence is inadequate and it warrants enhancement on re-appreciation of the relevant factors. Be that as it may, on re-appreciation thus, this court does not find that the trial court has committed any wrong in convicting the respondent no.1 under section 417 of IPC. For the victim- appellant it has been argued that the respondent no. 1 ought to have been convicted under section 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced with imprisonment and fine for committing rape.
8. Even if the entire evidence is re-appreciated, no evidence based on which this court can come to an inference beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent no. 1 has committed rape within the meaning of section 375 of the IPC would be found. The conversion even has not been challenged by the accused-respondents. If that is not challenged, there are adequate materials to hold the charge Crl.A. 19 of 2014 Page 4 of 6 under section 417 of the IPC as proved. The other respondents i.e. the respondents no. 2 to 8 are acquitted from the charge under section 348/323/34 of the IPC, but the respondent no.1 has been convicted under section 417 of the IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- which in turn shall be paid to the victim-appellant. Mr. BN Majumder, learned counsel has contended that that amount is too inadequate viz a viz. the crime committed by the respondent no.1.
9. This court has scrutinized the entire records and finds that the respondent no.1 has been convicted under section 417 of the IPC for the reason that on 'promise to marry' he had sexual intercourse with the victim. In such circumstances, when this court has already held that there is no clinching material to hold the respondent no. 1 as liable to be punished under section 376(1) of the IPC, his conviction under section 417 of the IPC as well does not require any interference. So this court is of the further view that the fine, as awarded is required to be revised. There shall be some enhancement in the fine money taking the context in consideration that the respondent no.1 on promise of marriage had cohabitated with the appellant and as consequence of that cohabitation, she was pregnant and finally she had to abort that pregnancy for the criminal act of the respondent no.1 and for the criminal act punishable Crl.A. 19 of 2014 Page 5 of 6 under Section 417 of the IPC, the victim-appellant has suffered.
10. Keeping into that aspect into consideration and the context as a whole, this court is of the view that the respondent no.1 shall pay fine of Rs.75,000/- within 60 (sixty) days from today in the trial court. It is reiterated that the entire amount of fine shall be given to the victim-appellant by the trial court. It is needless to say that if any amount has already been paid, that shall be deducted by the respondent no.1 a the time of making payment of fine.
11. With this observation and direction, this appeal stands partly allowed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.
JUDGE Saikat Crl.A. 19 of 2014 Page 6 of 6