Pranav B Prem

The Tripura High Court has reaffirmed that when prosecution evidence specifically alleging rape fails, the conviction cannot be automatically altered to Section 354 IPC unless there is satisfactory evidence to attract the same. A Single Bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha acquitted the Appellant, who had been convicted under Sections 341, 354, and 506 of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background

The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO), Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa, which had convicted and sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment under Sections 341, 354, and 506 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. According to the FIR lodged by the victim’s father, on August 21, 2023, the victim was allegedly abducted and raped by the Appellant while she was on her way to her tuition center. The police registered a case under Sections 341, 376(1), 506 IPC, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which led to the Appellant's conviction under the lesser charges after the Trial Court acquitted him of the rape allegations.

Court’s Observations and Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the testimonies of the victim, her parents, and other witnesses. The victim, in her deposition, stated that the Appellant forcibly gagged her mouth, dragged her into a rubber plantation, threatened her with a blade, disrobed her, and committed sexual intercourse against her will. However, the Trial Court did not find sufficient evidence to convict under Section 376(1) IPC or Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The High Court noted that the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act primarily on the basis of medical evidence. However, the Bench clarified: "Trial Court failed to consider the position of the law that the medical evidence is an opinion evidence advisory in nature and it cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence with reference to the commission of alleged offence. The medical evidence is used for the purpose of corroboration or discorroboration with reference to the substantive evidence adduced in a criminal trial by the prosecution in respect of the commission of crime."

The High Court further held: "This Court is, therefore, in agreement with the submission of Mr. Datta, learned counsel that when the prosecution evidence is led specifically regarding commission of rape upon the victim and it fails, the conviction cannot automatically be converted or altered to Section 354 IPC unless there are satisfactory evidences available to attract such provision."

Lack of Corroborative Evidence

The Court pointed out that the medical officer, who examined the victim, recorded the victim’s statement that the accused had touched her private parts and genital organs. However, there was no corroboration from the victim herself regarding molestation. The forensic report also did not find any seminal stain/spermatozoa, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Citing the precedent in Babul Laskar vs. State of Tripura [(2014) 1 TLR 1027], the Court observed: "If the allegation of rape cannot be believed, on the similar set of facts it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion that modesty of the prosecutrix was outraged by the accused inasmuch as there is no room to separate the facts in different compartments and to separate the grains from chaffs." Similarly, the Court referred to Pulin Bihari Roy vs. State of Tripura [(2012) 6 GLR 138], which held: "Where the allegation of rape fails, under the circumstances, on the same bundle of fact, the accused cannot be punished for outraging of modesty, unless the ingredients thereof as to the commission of assault or use of criminal force, by the accused, on the prosecutrix, with an intention of outraging of modesty or knowing it to be that he would thereby outrage her modesty, are established."

Rejection of Section 341 and 506 IPC Convictions

The prosecution argued that even if the convictions under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act were overturned, the conviction under Section 341 IPC should be maintained. The Court rejected this argument, stating: "As when the charges or conviction for the prime offence has failed and the conviction cannot be maintained in respect of above said principal offence under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, it will also not be proper to maintain conviction under Section 341 IPC which is a preparatory part of the principal offence."

Verdict

Concluding its findings, the High Court set aside the conviction and ordered: "In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Dhalai Judicial District, Ambassa in Spl. (POCSO) No.08 of 2023 as indicated earlier are hereby set aside." Accordingly, the Appellant was acquitted, and his bail bond was discharged.

Cause Title: Rajendra Debbarma @ Rajen v. The State of Tripura

Case No: Crl. A(J) No.52 of 2024

Bench: Justice S. Datta Purkayastha

[Read/Download order]