T. Amarnath Goud, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of CrPC against the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 16.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambassa, Dhalai Judicial District in Case No.ST(T-1) 31 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 448 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for 1(one) month. Further, under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10(ten) years along with a fine of Rs.100,000/- (rupees one lakh) payable to the legal heirs of the deceased with default stipulation, and also sentenced to suffer Life imprisonment for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. All the sentences were passed to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.07.2021, the informant, namely, Sri Daharam Reang lodged a written ejahar before the O.C., Manu Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on that day, at morning on receiving information from a shop of his locality, he rushed to his house and found the dead body of his niece, the victim, lying naked on the floor of his room. It is alleged that he was not present at his home on that day as he and his wife went to their Jhum field for cultivation. His old aged father-in-law was residing with them in their house and his neice, the victim, used to look after him staying in their house as she was deserted by her husband. The informant later came to know that his aged father-in-law went out from the house on the previous day of the occurrence and the victim stayed there with Sumita, her cousin sister in that house. In the evening of fateful day, the accused, Santa Debbarma along with another boy came to his house, consumed liquor with his friend and thereafter they both left. But, after sometime the accused again came back to his house and gave indecent proposal to the victim in presence of the minor counsin sister of the victim, but she refused to do so. The accused then threatened the minor sister of the victim with a stick and she being scared, left the house and then taking the advantage of loneliness, he forcibly raped and murdered her.

3. On the basis of that complaint, on 29.07.2021 a case was registered as Manu PS Case No.32 of 2021, under Sections 448/376/302 of IPC against the aforesaid accused person and investigation was commenced. Finally, after completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against accused Santa Debbarma before the learned Addl. Special Judge, Ambassa, Dhalai Judicial District, and subsequently, learned Court below took cognizance of the offences and framed charges against the said accused for commission of offence under Sections 448/376/302 of IPC Act to which the he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the charges, a total of 23 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and proved some material documents and objects as exhibits.

5. The accused at the time of examination under Section 313 CrPC denied the prosecution case as false claiming himself to be innocent. He also declined to adduce any defence witness.

6. Finally, learned Court below after hearing the learned counsel of both sides and considering the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced him under the aforesaid charges.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of sentence, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

8. At the time of argument, Ms. Varsha Podder, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no concrete evidence on which learned Court below returned its findings of conviction and sentence of the appellant because the statements made in the FIR and the statements as deposed by the informant in his deposition do not corroborate each other. There are serious discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses. Ms. Podder, learned counsel draws attention to the evidence of the so called friend of the accused, i.e. the P.W.17, who accompanied the accused at the house of the victim where she resided. She submits that the said PW-17, the friend of the accused did not directly state that the accused had committed rape and murder. Finally, she argues that the learned Court below on the basis of assumption, came to a conclusion that the accused-appellant is guilty of committing the aforesaid offence and thus she prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

9. Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. in course of argument submits that learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence on the testimonials of eye witnesses, i.e. PW-7, PW-17 and other corroborative evidences which are consistent and reliable. Mr. Datta, learned P.P. unequivocally submits that the medical evidence as well as the evidence of Forensic Expert are very much trustworthy and reliable upon which learned Court below has returned its findings of conviction and sentence of the accused under the aforesaid charges. Therefore, He prays for upholding the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as passed by learned trial Court.

10. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the relevant records. The most essential crux of the prosecution case depends on the entire evidence of eye witnesses in this case. The offshoot of the evidence of these eye witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-17 before us is that P.W.7, the cousin sister who was all along with the victim on the fateful day deposed before the trial Court that around one year ago (from the date of her deposition) in the evening, on a certain day the accused Santa Rai along with another came to their house when her parents were at the Jhum field and soon the friend of accused left the house by boarding an auto. Thereafter the accused started misbehaving and fighting/hitting her cousin sister (victim). She specifically stated that the accused strangulated her cousin sister and later, the accused also told her that he had raped and killed her victim-cousin sister.

11. Now, from the statements as deposed by PW-17 i.e. the friend of accused, we find that he accompanied the accused Santa Debbarma to the residence of the victim and very soon he left the place leaving Santa Debbarma as he had some personal works.

12. Thus, the from the statements of these two vital witnesses, it has come to light that they were very much prudent, consistent and reliable that on the date, time and place of the occurrence, the accused Santa Debbarma was very much present there. The PW-7, the cousin sister of the victim also deposed that she had seen her victim sister dead and the accused had disappeared from the place of occurrence. Both the witnesses had identified the accused in the dock.

13. It is apparent from the deposition of the PW-7 that she was aged about 11 years at the time of giving her deposition. Learned trial Court tested her maturity and understandings, and certified her to be a truthful witness. So, there is no question about her trustworthiness and her testimonials cannot be brushed aside.

14. Now, we go through the other corroborative witnesses i.e. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 who also supported the version of the prosecution story. PW-4, Smt. Manti Laxmi Tripura deposed that she knew the victim as her co-villager. About 11 months ago (from the date of deposition) on a certain day, Sumita Reang (younger sister of the deceased) accompanied her to the house of one Jayanti Bahadur. They both spent the night at the house of said Jayanti but Sumita did not say anything that night, rather, she was looking very scared. On the next day, Sumita told her that her elder sister was raped and murdered by the accused Santa Debbarma.

15. Likewise, PW-5 stated that Sumita and Manti Laxmi when spent night at her house, Sumita was looking very scared and on the following day Sumita told them that her elder sister was raped and murdered by the accused Santa Debbarma.

16. PW.6, the informant, very vividly and cogently stated that on the day of incident when he returned from work, his daughter Sumita Reang was missing. The next day, she returned home from the house of one Nepali family. She was very scared and told him that she had run away from the house on the day of incident under fear of accused Santa Rai Debbarma. She narrated that accused had raped and murdered the victim in her presence on the day of the incident. Thereafter, the informant lodged an FIR against the accused-appellant before the OC, Manu PS. He further stated that police seized wearing apparels of the victim from the place of occurrence in his presence and he put his signature on the seizure list being a seizure witness.

17. So, the testimonials of these three witnesses are very reliable as because they have corroborated the evidence of eye witnesses i.e. PW-7 and PW-17 i.e. the chain of circumstances of the occurrence.

18. PWs-8, 9 & 10 are the witnesses to the surathal/inquest report of the deceased. It is stated by PWs 9 and 10 in their deposition that when they reached to the place of occurrence, they found the deceased in a naked condition.

19. PW.11 is the aunt of the victim who stated that on being heard the incident from Sumita Reang, she came to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the victim was lying in a naked condition. She covered the dead body of the victim with a “pachra”.

20. PW-12 is a seizure witness in whose presence the wearing apparels of the victim were seized.

21. PW-13 is a lady police constable who accompanied with the S.I. of police, namely, Abu Awal along with other staff. She stated that on reaching the place of occurrence, she found the dead body of the deceased was in naked condition. They recovered the dead body and sent to the Manughat CHC for its post-mortem examination. She also translated the 161 statement of Sumita Reang, cousin sister of the deceased, in Bengali.

22. PW-14 is a co-villager who knew both the victim and the accused.

23. PW-15 is the Scribe of the FIR. He stated that he along with the Executive Magistrate and other police personnel went to the place of occurrence led by accused Santa Debbarma wherein the accused pointed out the exact place of occurrence and narrated the incident. On that basis a disclosure statement was prepared at the spot by the I.O. He also put his signature in the disclosure statement. The witness identified the accused Santa Debbarma in the dock.

24. PW.16 is a Videographer who conducted recording of reconstruction of crime scene and disclosure statement, and preserved the same in a pen drive.

25. PW-18 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the potency test of the accused and submitted its report suggesting that the accused is capable of performing sexual intercourse.

26. PW-19 being the Deputy Director, DNA Typing Division, SFSL stated that the semen stain detected in exhibit A [source: vaginal swab of the deceased] originated from the single source of exhibit D [source : blood sample of the accused Santa Debbarma].

27. PW-23 deposed that he being the Executive Magistrate, posted at Longtharai-Valley, Dhalai District went to the Manu PS and recorded the disclosure statement of the accused Santa Debbarma in presence of OC, Manu PS, the I.O and two other witnesses. Thereafter, this witness went to the place of occurrence accompanied by the accused along with said police personnel wherein the accused narrated the whole incident. The witness identified the accused in the dock.

28. PW-20 is the Scientific Officer-cum-Asstt. Chemical Examiner who after examination and analysis of Exhibit A (vaginal swab) opined that “human spermatozoa” were detected in the vaginal swab of the deceased/victim.

29. PW-21 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and deposed that the cause of death was Hypoxia (in brain) due to asphyxia. The said doctor finally opined in the said post-mortem report that discovery of semen in Exhibit-A (vaginal swab of the victim) as per the FSL report, proves that recent sexual intercourse had occurred.

30. PW-22 is the I.O. of the case who after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant.

31. On evaluating the entire evidence, it has come to light from the act of the accused that it was premeditated since before commission of rape and murder, he went to the house of the victim along with his another friend but very soon, his friend left from there leaving the accused in the house of the victim, he offered indecent proposal to the victim, started misbehaving, scuffling with the victim. All the incidents had occurred in presence of PW-7, who also vividly deposed that the accused was strangulating the victim and even the accused himself told PW-7 that he had raped and killed the victim. Moreover, from the medical evidence as well as the evidence of Forensic Expert, we find that presence of seminal stain and human spermatozoa on Exhibit-A (vaginal swab of the victim) of the accused was confirmed and therefore, sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. So, the testimony of PW-7 is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the confirmation of seminal stain and human spermatozoa on the vaginal swab of the victim and the opinion during autopsy duly proved by PW-21, leave no room for any doubt that the accused had committed house trespass with intent to commit rape and murder.

32. Further, from the deposition of PW-23, the DCM, we find that the accused made a disclosure statement before him in presence of Police officials including the IO as to how and in what manner he committed the crime. He narrated the whole incident in front of them. The post-mortem report confirms that the death was caused due to asphyxia and the medical officer found ligature mark present around the neck of the deceased with Hyoid Bone fracture. The Evidence of Dr. Papan Das, who on examination of the accused found bite mark over his left forearm ventral area nearer to left elbow, nail scratch near over right side of chest and near left side of back of chest, contusion over left deltoid region and swelling over lower lip and left side of forehead. So, these circumstantial evidence amply confirms the evidence of eye witness i.e. PW-7 that there was scuffling in between the accused and the victim and after fulfilling his lust, he killed the victim, which cannot be ruled out.

33. In the entire evidence, the defence could not bring any sufficient incriminating materials from the cross-examination of those witnesses except some formal denial.

34. In view of the evidence of PW-7, we must say that the evidence given by PW-7 is a solitary one and it satisfies the Court to base a conviction solely on the testimony of this witness.

35. Having scrutinized the prosecution evidence carefully as well as for the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was wholly justified in convicting the accused under Sections 448/376(1)/302 of IPC and the sentences as awarded do not call for any interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be set aside.

36. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambassa, Dhalai in connection with ST (T-1) 31 of 2021 is hereby affirmed.

37. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed.