Page 1 of 13
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
CRL A (J) 14 OF 2015
Sri Ranjit Reang,
S/o Lt. Kunjamani Reang of
Vill. Saikarbari, P.S. Anandabazar,
The State of Tripura
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratan Datta, Advocate.
Ms. Simita Chakraborty, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitabha Roy Barman,
Addl. Public Prosecutor.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment reserved on: 23rd November, 2018
Date of Pronouncement: 24th January, 2019
Whether fit for reporting: NO
(A. Lodh, J)
Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel representing the
appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, State of Tripura.
2. This Criminal Appeal (Jail) has been directed against the
judgment and order dated 28.03.2015, rendered by the learned
Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Sessions Case
No.ST/T-1/0000016/2014 whereby the appellant was found to be
guilty of commission of offence of rape upon the victim prosecutrix
(P.W.9) and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years under Section 376 (2)(f) of
Page 2 of 13
IPC and also to pay a fine of `3000/- only, in default to payment of
fine, to suffer further R.I. for 6 (six) months.
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that one Smt.
Dantairung Reang (P.W.6), the mother of the victim, lodged a written
FIR on 27.10.2010 with the Officer-in-Charge of Kanchanpur Police
Station against the accused-appellant Ranjit Reang alleging inter alia,
that on 22.10.2010, at about 6:30 pm, the accused had committed
rape upon her 9(nine) years old daughter (name has been kept
withheld to protect her identity) when she was sleeping in her hut.
The mother, i.e. the informant and her husband were not at home at
the time of occurrence. It is further alleged that when the accused
started committing rape upon the victim she raised alarm and
following her alarm, Smt. Naisowti Reang (P.W.2) rushed to the hut,
entered the room and saw the accused Ranjit Reang in a naked state
and was scuffling with the victim girl but instantly fled away from the
place of occurrence on seeing P.W.2. It has been alleged that P.W.2
had seen the accused in committing rape upon the victim.
4. Having received the information, the informant-mother of
the victim along with her husband rushed to their house and found
their victim daughter lying in unconscious state. They took up the
matter with the local community leaders and the local leaders
imposed a fine of `2,800/- upon the accused Ranjit Reang, but, the
parents of the prosecutrix were not satisfied. That prompted the
informant to lodge the FIR with the O.C., Kanchanpur P.S. as stated
above, on 27.10.2010, i.e. after 5(five) days of the occurrence of
Page 3 of 13
5. On receipt of the information, the Officer-in-Charge of the
Kanchapur P.S. registered a case bearing Kanchanpur P.S. Case
No.87/2010, under Section 376(1) of IPC.
6. Being endorsed, S.I. Jayanta Das took up the
investigation and produced the victim girl to Kanchanpur hospital for
her medical examination. Dr. S. Bhattacharjee, P.W.13 examined the
victim at Kanchanpur Sub-Divisional hospital and recorded his
observation in his report (Exbt.7) to the effect that he found no
physical signs of significance to suggest that the victim was sexually
assaulted. The medical officer found no mark of injury or wound in her
private part. Thereafter, I.O. examined the material witnesses of the
case and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.,
arranged ossification test for determining the age of the victim.
Subsequently, I.O. also produced the victim girl before the learned
Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kanchanpur for recording her
statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. Finally, after collection of
evidence, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant Ranjit
Reang for committing offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
7. On committal of the case, learned Additional Sessions
Judge having found prima facie materials framed the following charge
against accused Ranjit Reang, the appellant herein:
“That on 22-10-2010 A.D. at about 18.30 hours at
Sakaibari in the house of the informant under Kanchanpur
police station, you committed rape on the victim (name
withheld by me), a minor girl, aged about 9 years, the
daughter of the informant, and thereby committed an offence
u/s 376 of IPC and within my cognizance.
And I do hereby direct that you be tried for the
Page 4 of 13
8. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed
to stand the trial.
9. In course of trial, to substantiate the charge, prosecution
has examined as many as 14 witnesses including the informant
Dhantairung Reang (P.W.6), Smt. Naisowti Reang (P.W.2), two
doctors namely Dr. Tushar Kanti Choudhury (P.W.12) and Dr. Sutap
Bhattacharjee (P.W.13), Sri Jayanta Das, I.O. as well as the
prosecutrix (P.W.9), the victim girl.
10. The defence did not adduce any evidence and the accused
pleaded to be innocent in his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
11. On appreciation of the evidence and materials on record,
both oral and documentary and also upon hearing learned counsel of
the parties, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant
guilty of the offence of rape under Section 376 (2)(f) and accordingly,
convicted and sentenced him as already noted above.
12. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the sentence, the
accused-appellant preferred this appeal from jail.
13. Assailing the impugned conviction and sentence, Mr. R.
Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn
attention to this Court primarily to the evidence of P.W.9, the victim
girl who was admittedly a minor aged about 9 to 11 years as per
ossification report, the evidence of P.W.2 and the doctors.
13.1 According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant,
the delay in lodging the FIR is fatal to the instant case as by that time
the informant/complainant and other prosecution witnesses were able
to improvise the story of the incident. He further submits that the
Page 5 of 13
victim girl (P.W.9) who was admittedly a minor and aged between 7
to 11 years, being the child witness cannot be said to be credible and
unsafe to rely upon as she was appeared to be tutored and the same
cannot, therefore, be the basis of conviction. It is forcefully contended
by the learned counsel that the medical examination report (Exbt.7)
does not support the oral version of the prosecutrix (P.W.9) as well as
the eye witness to the incident Smt. Naisowti Reang (P.W.2) who is
the grand-mother of the victim girl. According to Mr. Dutta, learned
counsel, no credible corroborative evidence came out from either of
the prosecution witnesses to substantiate the charge against the
appellant. He further submits that the conviction and sentence as
returned by the learned trial Judge are based on conjectures and
surmises and are liable to be set aside.
13.2 Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has relied upon the following
decisions in support of his contention:
i. 2008 Cri.L.J. 586 [ Md. Jamiruddin Ahamed Vs.
State of Assam];
ii. 2008 Cri.L.J. 721[Bibhishan Vs. State of
iii. 2008 Cri. L.J. 2192 [Chinta Sinku Vs. The State of
iv. (2014) 1 TLR 690 [Dinesh Debbarma Vrs. State of
14. On the other hand, Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the case is well
proved and the ingredients of Section 375 of IPC have been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence passed by
the learned trial Judge stands good.
15. Before delving upon the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. Public
Page 6 of 13
Prosecutor, it would be necessary and apt to appreciate and evaluate
the evidence of P.W.2, the eye witness, the prosecutrix (P.W.9) and
P.W.12 13, the two doctors.
16. P.W.9 the prosecutrix in her examination in course of trial
has testified that on the day of occurrence it was 6:30 pm when she
and her younger sister were present in her hut. Her parents went on
invitation in the house of others on the occasion of ‘Laxmi puja’ and
there was a light of solar energy in their hut. At that time, the
appellant Ranjit Reang entered into her hut by opening the lock given
by her parents and the accused Ranjit forcefully made her naked and
he himself open her pant and thereafter forcibly committed rape upon
her. She cried out of pain and immediately P.W.2 Naisowti Reang
came but seeing P.W.2, the accused Ranjit Reang ran away holding
his pant. After that, her parents came and she reported the incident
to them. She identified the accused in the dock.
In her cross-examination she has stated that she did not
state to the police that accused committed rape by removing his pant
and after arrival of P.W.2 he ran away holding his pant, however, she
denied the suggestion that she deposed against the appellant falsely
17. P.W.2 in her examination-in-chief has stated that after
hearing the cries of the prosecutrix she went to her hut from her hut
and she witnessed Ranjit Reang committing forceful intercourse with
the prosecutrix against her will and seeing her, accused Ranjit ran
away. She identified Ranjit in the dock.
In her cross-examination, she has stated that hearing the
cries of the prosecutrix some neighbouring persons went there, but,
Page 7 of 13
by that time, she brought the victim girl to her hut. She specifically
named one Manik Reang who went to her house after the incident.
18. P.W.12, Dr. Tushar Kanti Choudhury deposed that he
examined the victim girl on 27.03.2011 to determine her age and he
found that she was about 9 to 11 years on the date of examination.
He identified the examination report which is marked as Exbt.6.
19. P.W.13, Dr. Sutap Bhattacharjee in his deposition has
stated that on 27.10.2010 being Medical Officer at Kanchanpur Sub-
Divisional Hospital has examined the victim girl. He has categorically
stated in his report that on examination he did not find any physical
sign of significance in any part of the body of the victim girl which
may suggest that she has been sexually assaulted. He further has
remarked that no injury was found in and around the private parts of
the victim girl. He identified the report which is marked as Exbt.7.
20. P.W.14, the I.O. has deposed that he seized the wearing
apparels of the victim girl and the seizure list on identification was
marked as Exbt.1/3. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he
filed the charge-sheet on the basis of oral evidence of the prosecution
21. The mother and father of the victim girl, i.e. P.W.6 and
P.W.7 respectively, in their evidence have replicated the statement of
the victim girl as well as P.W.2. P.W.6 has stated that in the morning
she had noticed some swelling at her vagina. She has further stated
that the matter was reported to their village community leaders for
Page 8 of 13
22. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, are the village community
leaders and they have stated that in the meeting Ranjit, the appellant
had admitted his guilt and they imposed a fine of `2,800/- upon him
to which the parents of the prosecutrix were not satisfied.
23. To justify the commission of offence of rape for which the
victim suffered pain of such penetration, the evidence of P.W.2 who
claimed to be the eye witness to the alleged occurrence and the
evidence of P.W.13 who examined the victim girl medically, in my
considered view, are very important.
24. P.W.2 in her evidence has categorically stated that she
was the witness to the incident and had seen the accused in a state of
committing intercourse against the will of the victim girl (P.W.9). On
plain reading of the said evidence of P.W.2, we may say that the
accused was in a position of intercourse and it gets fortified from the
statement of mother-complainant (P.W.6) that she noticed swelling at
the vagina of victim. In our opinion, the said swelling was caused due
to the violence leading to definite presumption of slightest degree of
penetration into the private part of the prosecutrix which satisfies the
doctrine of ‘carnal knowledge’ to constitute the offence of rape.
Resultantly, the medical report which was heavily relied upon by
learned counsel of the appellant would not carry weight in the nature
of this case. The FIR was lodged after 5(five) days, and by that time,
the said swelling must have been healed up.
At this stage, we are to consider the principle of
appreciating oral testimony of the victim as well as P.W.2
conjunctively with the medical jurisprudence in this regard.
Page 9 of 13
25. ‘Rape’ or ‘Raptus’ is when a man hath carnal knowledge of
a woman by force and against her will (Co. Litt.123-b); or as
expressed more fully, rape is the carnal knowledge of any woman,
above the age of particular years, against her will; or of a woman
child, under that age, with or against her will’ (Hale PC 628). The
essential words in an indictment for rape are rapuit and carnaliter
cognovit; but carnaliter cognovit, nor any other circumlocution
without the word rapuit, are not sufficient in a legal sense to express
rape; 1 Hon.6, la, 9 Edw. 4, 26 a (Hale PC 628). In the crime of rape,
‘carnal knowledge’ means the penetration to any the slightest degree
of the organ alleged to have been carnally known by the male organ
of generation (Stephen’s “Criminal Law” 9th Ed. P.262). In
‘Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice’ (Volume 4, page 1356) it is stated
“…. Even slightest penetration is sufficient and emission is
unnecessary”. In Halsbury’s Statutes of England and Wales (Fourth
Edition) Volume 12, it is stated that even the slightest degree of
penetration is sufficient to prove sexual intercourse. It is violation
with violence of the private person of a woman-an-outrage by all
means. By the very nature of the offence it is an obnoxious act of the
26. The findings in a criminal case would depend upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. Under the Indian criminal
jurisprudence, the accused has two fundamental protections available
to him in a criminal trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be
innocent till proved guilty and secondly, that he is entitled to a fair
trial and investigation. It is now settled that even the slightest degree
of penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary to constitute
the offence of rape.
Page 10 of 13
27. In the case at hand, the prosecutrix made a categorical
statement that the accused made her naked and committed rape on
her against her will. She was aged about 9 to 11 years. P.W.2 has
specifically stated that she had seen the accused in a state of
committing intercourse with the prosecutrix. P.W.6, the mother, Smt.
Dantairung Reang in her deposition has clearly stated that she noticed
some swelling at her vagina. It is now well settled and no more res
integra that if the oral testimony of the prosecutrix inspires
confidence and appears to be trustworthy, then, her sole testimony is
enough to convict an accused of committing the offence of rape.
According to us, it is not always necessary that intercourse has to be
completed, and the law is that even the touch to the private part of
the female organ is enough to constitute the offence of rape. Thus, we
repel the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and the
decisions as referred to by the learned counsel are factually different
from the present case before us.
28. It is now well-neigh settled that there is no hard-and-fast
rule that conviction recorded in favour of accused must get support
from medical evidence, if the oral testimony of the prosecutrix other
relevant evidence is found to be trustworthy and inspire confidence of
the Court. We re-iterate that in the present case the oral testimony of
the 9 years old victim girl and P.W.2 remain unshaken in the cross
examination. This Court does not find any consistency in the oral
testimony of the victim as well as the P.W.2. Thus, in the facts of the
case in hand, we can safely dispense with the medical examination
29. We have carefully perused the decisions rendered in
Jamirudding (supra), Bibhisan (supra), Chinta Sinku (supra)
Page 11 of 13
and Dinesh Debbarma (supra) but in our considered view, the facts
and circumstances of those cases are quite distinguishable from the
facts and circumstances of the instant case before our hand.
30. In Dinesh alias Buddha Vrs. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2006) 3 SCC 771, the Supreme Court in Para 9, 10 and
11 has observed thus:
“9. The physical scar may heal up, but the mental
scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished,
what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the
deep sense of some deathless shame. An accused
cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on
corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the
case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as
probable. Judicial response to human rights cannot be
blunted by legal jugglery.
10. It is to be noted that in sub-section(2)
of Section 376 I.P.C. more stringent punishment can be
awarded taking into account the special features
indicated in the said sub-section. The present case is
covered by Section 376(2)(f) IPC i.e. when rape is
committed on a woman when she is under 12 years of
age. Admittedly, in the case at hand the victim was 8
years of age at the time of commission of offence.
11. In the Indian Setting refusal to act on the
testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence
of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A
girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive
society of India would be extremely reluctant even to
admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her
chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of
the danger of being ostracized by the society and when
in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light,
there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine
rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has
sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to
be self-inflicted, is the best witness in the sense that he
is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the
evidence of a victim of sexual offence is entitled to
great weight, notwithstanding the absence of
corroboration. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an
accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for
conviction in a rape case. The observations of Vivian
Bose, J. in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan (AIR
1952 SC 54) were:
Page 12 of 13
“The rule, which according to the cases has
hardened into one of law, is not that
corroboration is essential before there can be a
conviction but that the necessity of
corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except
where the circumstances make it safe to
dispense with it, must be present to the mind of
31. Having viewed so, the Apex Court at Para 13 has held
“13. The legislative mandate to impose a sentence,
for the offence of rape on a girl under 12 years of age,
for a term which shall not be less than 10 years, but
which may extend to life and also to fine reflects the
intent of stringency in sentence. The proviso to Section
376(2) IPC, of course, lays down that the court may,
for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in
the judgment, impose sentence of imprisonment of
either description for a term of less than 10 years.
Thus, the normal sentence in a case where rape is
committed on a child below 12 years of age, is not less
than 10 years’ RI, though in exceptional cases “for
special and adequate reasons” sentence of less than 10
years’ RI can also be awarded. It is a fundamental rule
of construction that a proviso must be considered with
relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a
proviso particularly in such like penal provisions. The
courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in
the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases.
Recourse to the proviso can be had only for “special
and adequate reasons” and not in a casual manner.
Whether there exist any “special and adequate reasons”
would depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case. No hard-and-
fast rule can be laid down in that behalf of universal
32. We find no special and adequate reasons to reduce the
sentence recorded against the appellant herein. We already have hold
that even the touch or slightest degree of penetration constitutes the
offence of rape and considering that the prosecutrix is aged between
9 to 11 years, we are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and
order of sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the
conviction and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten)
Page 13 of 13
years along with fine as declared by the judgment dated 28.03.2015,
is hereby affirmed and upheld.
33. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the accused-
appellant fails and dismissed.
34. Send down the L.C. records along with a copy of this
(ARINDAM LODH),J (SANJAY KAROL),CJ