Kiran Raj

The High Court of Tripura has partially allowed an appeal challenging the conviction and sentencing of an individual under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court modified the sentence from ten years of rigorous imprisonment to two years while increasing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000, upholding the conviction but reducing the custodial penalty.

The case originated from an FIR lodged on February 26, 2012, by the father of the victim, alleging that his minor daughter had been raped by the appellant, Md. Ali Hossain @ Ali Hossain. The FIR was filed after the victim was found to be six months pregnant during a medical examination at Bishramganj Sen Medical Hall. Upon inquiry, the victim disclosed that she had been subjected to sexual assault eight months earlier but had refrained from reporting it due to fear and shame.

Following an investigation, the police registered a case against the accused under Section 376 of IPC. The charge sheet was filed on November 30, 2012, following which the trial commenced. On December 21, 2023, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sepahijala District, Bishalgarh, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal before the High Court, contesting both the conviction and sentencing.

The appellant's counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta, along with Mr. S. Debnath, contended that there was a significant delay of eight months in lodging the FIR, which raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The defense also pointed out inconsistencies in the victim's statements before the magistrate and the trial court regarding the number of times she was allegedly assaulted. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual act was non-consensual.

Conversely, the prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R. Saha, countered that the delay in filing the FIR was due to social stigma and fear experienced by the victim. The prosecution further relied on DNA evidence, which confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the victim's child.

The High Court, after reviewing the case records, noted that while there were contradictions in the victim’s testimony regarding the number of assaults, the scientific evidence from the DNA test remained conclusive. The bench observed that the accused had initially denied his involvement during trial but later sought to argue that the act was consensual.

Justice T. Amarnath Goud, delivering the oral judgment, observed that inconsistencies in a victim's testimony do not automatically negate the charges, especially in sexual offenses where psychological trauma may affect recollection. The court stated that the DNA report established paternity beyond any doubt, making it evident that sexual intercourse had taken place between the appellant and the victim. Furthermore, the court noted the testimony of the Panchayat Pradhan, who deposed that a community resolution had been attempted between the victim's family and the accused.

The High Court, considering the contradictions in the victim’s testimony and the prolonged delay in filing the FIR, decided to reduce the custodial sentence while enhancing the fine. The court revised the sentence under Section 376(1) IPC, sentencing the appellant, Md. Ali Hossain @ Ali Hossain, to rigorous imprisonment for two years and imposing a fine of Rs. 2,00,000. In default of payment of the fine, the appellant would undergo an additional year of imprisonment.

The court stated that the period of custody already undergone by the appellant would be set off against the revised sentence. It further instructed that the fine amount be directed to the victim as compensation.

Case Title: Md. Ali Hossain @ Ali Hossain vs. State of Tripura
Case Number: Crl. A(J) 4 of 2024
Bench: Justice T. Amarnath Goud, Justice B. Palit

[Read/Download order]