Sri Abhimanya Tanti @ Mannya vs The State of Tripura

Page 1 of 8

2026:THC:1420-DB
TRHC010001962025


HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

Crl.A(J) 10 of 2025

Sri Abhimanya Tanti @ Mannya
Son of late Bangshidhan Tanti
Village Dewanpasa, P.S. Dharmanagar
District- North Tripura

……………..Convict Appellant(s).

Versus

The State of Tripura
………. Respondent(s)

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, Legal Aid Counsel

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Mr. S. Saha, Addl. P.P.

Date of hearing and delivery
of judgment & order : 13.10.2026

Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No.
HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R
[Dr.T. Amarnath Goud, J]
[1] Heard Mr. P.S. Roy, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned PP representing the
State.

Page 2 of 8

[2] The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr. P.C against the
impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.02.2018 passed by
learned Session Judge, North Tripura District, Dharmanagar in case No. ST/T-
1/18 of 2017 whereby the Appellant has been convicted under section
457/376(1) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 05(five) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand) only for the offence under section 457 of the
India Penal Code and in default of payment of the same to suffer R.I
imprisonment for a term of 03(three) months. Learned court below further
sentenced the Appellant Sri Abhimanya Tanti@ Manna to suffer R.I for 10
(Ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/for the offence under section 376(1)
of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, further to suffer R.I
for another 6 months and both the sentences shall run concurrently.
[3] The prosecution story in brief as enumerated before the Court
below is that the victim lodged an ejahar on 16-07-2012 before the O/C,
Dharmanagar PS against the accused Abhimanya Tanti @ Mannya, a relative of
her husband alleging that the said accused on 15-07-2012 committed
housebreaking into her hut at about 10 to 10.30 pm while she was sleeping
alone in her hut committed rape on her person forcefully and threatened her that
he would kill her if she disclosed the incident to other. On receipt of the ejahar,
the O/C, Dharmanagar P.S. registered Dharmanagar PS case no. 104/12 u/s.
457/376/506 of IPC against the accused Mannya Tanti on 16-07-2012 at about

Page 3 of 8

20:15 hours and endorsed the case to an SI for investigation and after
investigation the IO submitted charge sheet against accused Sri Abhimanya
Tanti @ Mannya, appellant herein under sections 457/376/506 of IPC.
[4] The accusation in brief as revealed from the charge sheet was that
the victim was the second wife of her husband Miju Tanti and at the relevant
date and time she was alone sleeping at her hut and her husband was sleeping in
a neighbouring hut along with his first wife. About 15/16 days earlier from the
date of the incident newly born baby of the victim expired within one month of
its birth and as such she was not mentally and physically fit. On the crucial date
her husband brought Abhimanya Tanti @ Mannya, a relative of her husband
being brother in law. On that very date after taking dinner the victim went to
her hut for sleeping alone. At about 10 to 10:30 pm, Abhimanya Tanti @
Mannya by opening the bamboo made door committed house trespass into her
hut and forcefully raped her and also threatened her that he would murder her if
she published the incident. On that night instead of calling her husband and
other members nobody came out from the neighbouring huts where her husband
was sleeping with his first wife and thus out of fear she did not go out of home
to inform others.
[5] On receipt of the charge sheet since the case was exclusively
triable by the court of sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Dharmanagar committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar,
North Tripura and on receipt of the case on commitment, charges against

Page 4 of 8

accused Sri Abhimanya Tanti @ Mannya were framed under sections
457/376(1) of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charges were read
over and explained to the accused person. He pleaded not guilty and stood the
trial. In total 06 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the
charges against the accused person. The accused person was examined under
section 313 of CrPC. His case was of total denial contending that he was falsely
implicated but, he declined to adduce any evidence on his defence.
[6] Thereafter, learned Court below upon hearing the arguments
advanced by both the sides and on perusal of material evidence on record, has
decided the case by its judgment and order dated 15.02.2018 passed in Case No.
ST/T-1/18/2017 and sentenced the accused persons, in the following manner:
“....O R D E R OF SENTENCE
[3] In view of the discussion stated above, I hereby sentence the convict Sri
Abhimanya Tanti @ Mannya to suffer RI for 05(five) years and to pay a fine of
₹5,000/- for the offence under section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of
months. payment of fine he is further to suffer RI for another 3 months.
I hereby also sentence the convict Sri Abhimanya Tanti @ Mannya to suffer
RI for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- for the offence under section 376(1)
of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he is further to suffer RI
for another 6 months.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Fine money, if realized, shall be paid to the victim of this case as
compensation. ………….........................”
[7] Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 15.02.2018
passed by the learned Court below, the appellant herein has preferred the instant
appeal seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Admit this appeal,

Page 5 of 8

ii) Call for the record;
iii)Issue notice upon the respondent, and
After hearing the parties be pleased enough to set aside the impugned Judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 15-02-2018 passed by *, Ld Session Judge,
North Tripura District, Dharmanagar in case No.ST(T-1) 18 of 2017 whereby and
where under the appellant has been convicted U/S 457 of I.P.C and sentenced to
suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5(five) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/(Rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of the same, he shall
suffer R.I imprisonment for a term of 03 (three) months.
The Hon'ble Court also sentence the convict Appellant to suffer R.I for
10(Ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ for the offence under section 376(1) of
the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he is further to suffer R.I for
another 6 months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. ………............”
[8] Mr. P.S. Roy, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the learned trial Court below ought to have held that the
alleged presence of convict appellants at the alleged place of occurrence,
alleged participation of the appellants in the commission of alleged offence are
absolutely doubtful and on the basis of such evidence, the appellant could not
be convicted for the alleged offence. He, further submits that the learned trial
Court relied on the improved versions of all he P.W.s illegally and on the basis
of such improved versions, convicted and sentenced the appellant only on
surmise and conjecture.
[9] Mr. Roy, learned Legal Aid Counsel further contends that the PW-
5, Sri Dipak Ch. Nath deposed before the trial court that on 17.072012 at about
12.30 PM he received vaginal swab sample from Dr. Bireswar Saha, Medical
officer, Dharmanagar for examination and in the Laboratory of the hospital he
examined the patient but spermatozoa could not be seen. He submitted his
report on that date which he proved as Exhibit-1. But the learned trial Court

Page 6 of 8

failed to appreciate the same without considering the evidence of expert. It is
also contended that P.W1, the victim deposed that she could not recollect the
actual year of the incident. She also said that she could not recollect whether
she put her thumb impression in the FIR or not. She said that she had settled up
the dispute since, accused is a relative of her husband. In the cross examination
she said that her husband where he along with his first wife slept was situated
about 20 cubics away from her hut. According to the learned Legal Aid Counsel
strangely, she did not cry and the police also did not take the evidence of her
husband and his first wife. It is further contended that there have been some
contradictions between the evidence of P.W1 and 161 report of police. He,
further submits that in the present case there are no any eye witnesses, so, it is
very difficult to decide whether the appellant is guilty or not, but the learned
Trial Court failed to appreciate the same. Learned Legal Aid Counsel, therefore,
urges this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the
learned Court below.
[10] On the contrary, Mr. Raju Datta, learned P.P. appearing for the
State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. He contends
that learned trial Court below on perusal of all the relevant records and
examining all the relevant witnesses has decided the case by its order dated
15.02.2018 in case No. ST/T-1/18/2017 and the same should not be interfered
with. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the instant appeal filed by the
appellant.

Page 7 of 8

[11] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the material
evidence on record.
[12] Upon hearing the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of
necessary material evidence on record, this Court finds that there remained
some questions unanswered from the side of prosecution to establish that
undoubtedly, the accused is guilty. Exhibit.1 i.e. Veginal Swab Examination
Report shows that no spermatozoea was seen. In the case in hand, the accused
appellant is the brother in-law of the husband of P.W.1(the victim). In cross-
examination P.W.1 stated that she had settled up the dispute since, the accused
is her husband’s relative. Thus, it has not been cleared whether there had been
any consent between the victim and the accused or not. However, statements of
PWs No.2, 3 & 4 support the victim’s statement that the incident of rape upon
the victim was informed to them by her. PW 2 is the wife of the victim’s
brother, PW 3 is also wife of another brother of the victim and PW 4 is the
brother of the victim before the trial Court.
[13] It is brought to the notice of this Court that the accused has already
undergone imprisonment for a substantial period of more than eight and half
years. The learned Pubic Prosecutor has not been able to point out any adverse
circumstance arising during the period of incarceration warranting the
continued imposition of the remaining sentence.

Page 8 of 8

[14] Having regard to the period of imprisonment already undergone
and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view
that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced
to the period already undergone by the appellant. Accordingly, the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the appellant by the impugned order
dated 15.02.2018 in case No. ST/T-1/18/2017 is modified and reduced to the
period of imprisonment already undergone. Hence, the appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if his detention is not
required in connection with any other case.
[15] Resultantly, the instant appeal is hereby allowed to the extent as
indicated above and accordingly the same is disposed of. In the event, if the
accused appellant has already been released considering the remissions, the
same shall hold goods and the instant appeal shall automatically stand closed in
that case. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also
stand closed.

B. PALIT, J DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
















Sabyasachi G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH
Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH
Date: 2026.10.16 12:29:56 +05'30'