Tripura HC Acquits Man in Rape Case Over “DNA Mismatch,” “Unproven Disability,” and “Serious Procedural Lapses by Trial Court”
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Tripura at Agartala, Division Bench comprising of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha and Justice Arindam Lodh, has set aside the conviction and sentence of a man previously found guilty under Section 376(2)(l) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, who had been sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, was acquitted following detailed scrutiny of the evidentiary inconsistencies and legal requirements for conviction under the said provision.
The Bench observed that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the prosecutrix was mentally or physically disabled to the extent required by law and recorded that there were inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the investigation and trial process.
The prosecution case was based on a First Information Report lodged on 20 June 2020 by the mother of the victim. It was alleged that on 16 June 2020, during the complainant’s absence from home, the appellant had sexually assaulted her disabled daughter. The incident allegedly occurred between 10:00 AM and 1:30 PM when the complainant had gone to consult a doctor at the Mirza market, leaving behind her disabled daughter and her grandson aged approximately three and a half years.
On her return, the complainant claimed to have learned from her grandson that the appellant had committed "filthy acts" with the victim. Subsequently, the victim allegedly confirmed to her mother that the appellant had raped her in the backyard of their house. The matter was then shared with the appellant's wife, a neighbour (PW-3), and the village Pradhan, who advised the complainant to report the incident to the police.
The FIR was registered as Kakraban P.S. Case No. 53 of 2020 under Section 376(2)(l) IPC. During the investigation, various items were seized, including dried blood samples from both the appellant and the victim, vaginal swab, pubic hair, and the victim's panty. These were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory.
The charge sheet was filed by Sub-Inspector Madhabi Debbarma (PW-17), and trial proceedings were conducted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur. Despite the forensic report excluding the appellant's DNA from the seminal stain found on the victim's undergarments, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, relying mainly on the testimonies of the victim (PW-2), her mother (PW-1), and two villagers (PW-3 and PW-4).
The appellant denied the allegations and pointed to the lack of reliable evidence and the existence of previous enmity between the parties. It was also submitted by the defense that the prosecution failed to explain the four-day delay in lodging the FIR and that there were contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
The High Court examined the testimonies and documentary evidence with particular scrutiny on whether the victim qualified as "mentally or physically disabled" under Section 376(2)(l) IPC.
It recorded: "Neither the doctor who issued the disability certificate was examined, nor was the certificate duly proved into evidence. Mere oral evidence of the mother of the victim that her daughter was physically challenged person was not sufficient enough to convict the appellant."
The Court further noted: "There is no indication in the record that the amended provision of Section 164 Cr.P.C., mandating assistance of interpreter or special educator while recording statements of disabled victims, was followed."
It was also observed that the Judicial Magistrate (PW-15) and the medical officer (PW-16) who examined the victim did not note any signs of physical or mental disability. "The statement of the victim was recorded without assistance of an interpreter or special educator, nor was it videographed as mandated."
Regarding the forensic evidence, the Court recorded the findings of Dr. Subhankar Nath (PW-11), Deputy Director of DNA Typing Division: "The semen stain which was detected in the panty of the victim did not originate from the dried blood sample of the appellant." The Court held that the Trial Court committed error in discarding this report, stating, "Just because the evidence of PW-11 was of advisory nature, learned Trial Court was not at all justified to ignore the same without finding any fault with it."
The Bench referenced Supreme Court precedents, noting: "DNA profile... is consistently held to be valid and reliable... we have, therefore, no reason to discard the evidence of PW-11."
On the issue of delay in FIR, the Court found the explanation unsatisfactory. "Such alleged disability cannot be a ground of causing delay in lodging the FIR unless she was prevented for other certain probable reasons."
The Court also examined the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5 and recorded inconsistencies and hearsay elements. It noted that PW-5 did not even mention rape but only that someone pulled the victim’s hands.
Additionally, the medical examination conducted by Dr. Gayatri Debnath (PW-16) found no signs of recent injury or forceful intercourse, observing that the hymen rupture was old. The Court recorded: "She did not give any opinion about any recent sexual intercourse or about any forceful intercourse."
The High Court criticized the Trial Court's assumptions, noting: "Learned Trial Court made observations based on certain imaginary facts and hypothesis without it’s availability in the evidence."
In conclusion, the Division Bench held: "We find no other option but to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. As a result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 03.04.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2021 and related sentence passed on 06.04.2024 by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gomati, Udaipur are set aside."
The Court further directed: "The appellant is set at liberty and bail bond liability of his surety stands discharged. Return the Trial Court record with copy of the judgment. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. D. Datta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Rajib Saha, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Sri Dipak Debnath vs The State of Tripura
Case Number: Crl. A(J) No.34 of 2024
Bench: Justice Arindam Lodh, Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
[Read/Download order]
