Tripura High Court
Unknown vs For Applicant(S) : Mr. J. Bhattacharjee on 20 March, 2019
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No. 2/2019
in Crl. A(J) No.6/2019
For Applicant(s) : Mr. J. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Roy Barman, Addl. P. P.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL
ORDER
20/03/2019 No response is sought to be filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, this Court is inclined to allow the application filed by the convict, suspending the operation of the sentence imposed upon him by the Trial Court.
On 21st June, 2016, the prosecutrix, PW-3 was allegedly raped by the accused who stands convicted by the Court below. This Court finds inter alia six reasons to suspend the sentence.
(i) Prima facie the Trial Judge proceeded on the premise that testimonies of the material witnesses i.e. prosecutrix and her parents are free from contradiction and embellishment. The trial Judge has not discussed in extensio, the effect thereof, which this court finds to be there in the statements of these witnesses. Whether the same has rendered the genesis of the prosecutrix story to be false, incorrect or doubtful or not has to be a subject matter of scrutiny in the instant appeal.
(ii) The alleged offence took place on 21.6.2016, whereas for the first time the matter stood reported to the authorities/police only on 4.7.2016. The delay remains unexplained. This court may not be understood to have formed an opinion with regard thereto, but prima facie on the bare reading of the judgment there does not appear to be a reasonable justification with regard thereto. Page 2 of 3
(iii) The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case in its entirety.
(iv) The prosecutrix is not a minor. At the time of alleged offence her age was 21 years (approximately) and the age of the accused was 60 years (approximately). They are immediate neighbours who are not in support of the prosecution.
(v) There is an alibi of false implication. The mother of the prosecutrix does not deny non transfer of the land in their name, for which the matter was taken up with the accused.
(vi) The wife of the accused is suffering from Cancer and at this stage there is none to take her care. The accused has no other case pending against him or there is no past incident of criminal activity. Also there is no apprehension of the accused threatening, incriminating or in any manner interfering with the courts of justice. Accused has got roots in the society and is not likely to flee away from the jurisdiction of the Court. Also he undertakes to surrender as and when called for.
As such, keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the application is allowed and the sentence of the accused-applicant namely, Ranjit Kumar Das imposed upon him vide judgment dated 7.1.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Case No. Sessions Trial/T-1/26/2017 titled as The State of Tripura Vrs. Sri Ranjit Kumar Das shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal and he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Page 3 of 3
Copy of this order be sent to the Jail authority to have the needful done. Be also made available to the learned counsel for the parties.
(SANJAY KAROL),CJ.
Dipankar