CRA (DB)/62/2023 of MANJRISH@MONJRISH TRIPATHI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CRA (DB) 156 of 2023 With CRAN 2 of 2025 Pankaj Kumar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. With CRA (DB) 136 of 2023 Balak Ram Yadav Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. With CRA (DB) 62 of 2023 Manjrish alias Monjrish Tripathi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. For the Amicus Curiae : Mr. Arpan Saha, Adv. In CRA(DB) 136 of 2023 and CRA(DB) 62 of 2023 For the Appellant : Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Adv. In CRA (DB) 136 of 2023 Mr. Raushan Kumar Ray, Adv. Mr. Avik Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar Poddar, Adv. 2 For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. P.P. Ms. Amita Gaur, Sr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Sourath Nandy, Adv. Hearing concluded on : 03.02.2026 Judgment on : 12.03.2026 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:- 1. The three appeals are taken up together for consideration as these have emanated out of a common impugned judgment of conviction dated February 24, 2023 and order sentence dated February 27, 2023 passed by learned Judge, Special (POCS O) Court, Howrah, in Special T.R. No 18 of 2016 arising out of Howrah GRPS Case No. 187 of 2015. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellants Balak Ram Yada v and Pankaj Kumar were convicted of the offence punishabl e under Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual O ffences Act, 2012 whereas, the appellant Manjrish @ Monjrish Tripathi wa s convicted of the offence punishable under Section 6/17 of the said Act. By the impugned order, the appellant Manjrish @ Monjrish Tripath i was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 10 years togeth er with a fine of ₹50,000/- for the offence under Section 6/17 of the Act of 2012. In default of payment of fine, the said appellant was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 1 year. 3 3. The other two appellants namely, Balak Ram Yadav and Pankaj Kumar were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of ₹1,00,000/- each, for committing the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual O ffences Act, 2012 and in default of payment of fine, they were directed t o suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 2 years each. 4. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the impugn ed judgment and order was passed by learned trial Court wit hout proper appreciation of evidence and for such reason the impugned conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside. 5. It was contended that the victim was recovered from the t rain in an unconscious condition and at that time one of th e appellants i.e. Manjarish @ Monjrish Tripathi was detained from the sel f-same compartment of the train. However, the prosecution was n ot able to establish the circumstances under which the other two appella nts were implicated in the case. According to such appellants, the vi ctim never identified them as perpetrators. CCTV footage was also not collected until then. In fact, the prosecution did not pro duce any evidence with regard to involvement of the two appellants in the alleged incident. 6. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants also submitted that two consecutive Test Identification Parades w ere conducted and on the first day, the victim could identify only one of 4 the appellants. Subsequently, on the second Test Identificatio n Parade, both the appellants Balak Ram Yadav and Pankaj Kumar were identified. It was submitted that the prosecution withheld the first Test Identification Parade report at the trial. It was a lso contended that the learned trial Court overlooked the evidence of PW 13 in so far as it disclosed that the suspect had told him before the TIP that he was produced before Court a couple of times when the vict im was also present. The victim’s evidence also disclosed that when the said appellants were apprehended, she visited Howrah GRPS and had the occasion to see the appellants. Such evidence, made the id entification of the appellants in the Test Identification Parade h ighly doubtful. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the appella nt placed reliance upon (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 180 (Gireesan Nair Vs. State of Kerala). 7. Learned advocate for the appellants also contended that th e prosecution proved a seizure list i.e. Exhibit 31 with re gard to seizure of a register maintained by AIR courier service. The said register was produced at the trial and was marked with ‘x’ for iden tification. However, there was no endeavour on the part of the prosecutio n to prove such register at the trial to look into its contents w hich rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful. 8. Learned advocate for the appellants further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to produce any document at the 5 trial to establish that the appellant Balak Ram Yadav w as on leave on the relevant date and was travelling in the train in wh ich the incident is alleged to have happened. No document regarding leave o r travel of the said appellant, issued by his employer department has been proved at the trial. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant also argued that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that in her first statement before Madhupur GRPS, the victim never made an explicit allegation of sexual assault upon her. It was contended that the case of sexual violation was incorporated later with a view to cover up the voluntary disappearance of the victim from her house. According to l earned advocate for the appellant, the learned trial Court over looked the evidence that the victim had Facebook friendship with a str anger which was not known to her parents and that she met suc h friend prior to the incident. Learned advocate for the appellan t also raised doubts over the time of uploading pictures on the Facebook a ccount of victim vis-à-vis the time of incident. 10. Learned advocate for the appellants also contended that th e learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the victim in relation to her going unconscious and her rescue by Madhupur GRPS in an unconscio us state. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the 6 prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against th e appellants. 11. On the other hand, learned advocate for the State submitte d that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond all rea sonable doubts. The chain of circumstances were persuasively established by the prosecution with the help of cogent and overwhelmin g evidence which leaves no scope for any proposition except pointing to the guilt of the appellants. Learned advocate for the State stood by the impugned judgment and order. 12. The victim, a class IX student, boarded Howrah-Amritsar Express from Howrah station at about 1.55 a.m. on December 27, 2015. Due to her ignorance, she boarded in a compartmen t of the train, reserved for military. 10-15 minutes of the depart ure of the train, three persons including the person who was detain ed for interrogation, started chatting with the victim. They a lso asked the victim if she would drink which she replied in the negative . Thereafter, one of them brought out a wine bottle from his bag. The o ther person mixed water in such wine in an empty bottle and thereaft er, the victim was forcefully made to drink wine. The statement of the victi m also disclosed that after consuming wine, she went to washroom to meet nature’s call. When she was coming out of the washroom, o ne of the persons, pushed the victim inside, abused her and disrobed her and committed nasty work while pressing her mouth. Thereafter, the 7 second man came in and committed nasty work upon her. Both of them took turns and committed the nasty work four time s. After committing the crime the miscreants brought the victim out of the bathroom and laid her on a seat of the train. The mi screants also threatened the victim not to disclose the incident or she wo uld be thrown out of the train. After sometimes, the train stop ped somewhere when the victim was deboarded and her statement was recorded. 13. Such statement also said that the incident started after 1 0-15 minutes of the departure of the train from Howrah stat ion and happened between 1.55 p.m. and 2.45 p.m. She further st ated that the person who was detained for interrogation disclosed his name as Manjrish Tripathi. The victim identified her as the pers on who forced her to consume liquor. 14. On the basis of such statement of the victim, Madhupur Rail PS Case No. 00 of 2015 dated December 28, 2015 under Sec tions 376(2)(g)/376D/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 an d Sections 4/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offen ces Act, 2012 was started against three unknown miscreants. 15. The police took up investigation and on completion thereof , submitted charge sheet in the case. Offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Co urt of learned Sessions Judge. On the basis of materials in the cas e diary, 8 charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was framed against t he appellants on April 8, 2016. 16. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution exam ined as many as 18 ocular witnesses. In addition, the prosecution also relied upon certain documentary as well as material evidence which were produced at the trial and were admitted in evidence. 17. The victim herself deposed as PW 1. She has stated that on December 27, 2015, at about 11/12 noon she came to Howra h station and intended to go to Ludhiana. She further stated tha t she boarded Howrah Amritsar express in an Army compartment due to rus h in other compartments. There were only three persons in such a compartment. When she took seat in the compartment, the t hree persons came to her and started talking to her. The conversat ion continued for about 15 minutes. While the train was pas sing Sreerampore station, PW 1 was asked whether she take dr inks which she answered in the negative. PW1 further stated that two of the persons held her by hands and the third person poured d rink into her mouth from a red colour bottle. She identified the appel lant Pankaj Kumar and Balak Ram Yadav in Court as the persons who held her. She also identified the appellant Manjrish Tripathi as the person who poured drink into her mouth. 18. PW1 also stated that when she tried to raise alarm, she wa s threatened by all the appellants that they were Army personnel and 9 they could do anything and everything to her. After that, PW1 went to washroom. When she was inside the washroom someone kicked o n the door. When she opened the door, the appellant Pankaj Kumar pushed her and entered into the washroom causing injury on h er left ring finger. Thereafter, the said appellant undressed P W1 and committed sexual intercourse upon her. After him, anoth er appellant Balak Ram Yadav entered into the washroom and committed sexual intercourse upon PW1. They took turns and committed sexu al intercourse upon PW1 for about 6 times. PW1 went semi-un conscious and when she regained senses, she found police personnel i n the train compartment. She was taken to police station and at t hat time, appellant Manjarish Tripathi was also present. He was also nabbed by police from the said compartment. 19. PW1 also stated that later on, she came to know that she was deboarded from the train at Madhupur railway station. S he recorded her statement in Hindi in presence of a lady constable of police. Her statement was recorded and after going through the same, s he put her signature thereon. She proved her signature of such statement. (Exhibit 1/1). She was also medically examined in a ho spital at Deoghar after obtaining her consent. She proved her signatu re on the consent letter (Exhibit 2). Thereafter, PW1 was taken b ack to Howrah statin on December 29, 2015. At Howrah, PW1 was again taken to police station where her statement was again recorded. She wa s also 10 taken to Howrah hospital where she was medically examined , upon obtaining her consent which she proved (Exhibit 3). PW1 al so recorded her statement before the Magistrate. She proved her signatures on such statement (Exhibit 4 series). She also proved her signatu re on the seizure lists under which her vaginal swab and a sweate r were seized (Exhibits 5 & 6). She was again medically examined at Howrah hospital on January 6, 2016. PW 1 also attended Test Iden tification Parades conducted in the Howrah Jail and identified appell ant Balak Ram Yadav on the first day and appellant Pankaj Kumar on the second day of test identification parade. She also proved her signature on the seizure list under which her wearing apparel she wor e at the time of incident, were seized (Exhibit 7). 20. PW1 was extensively cross examined on behalf of the appellants on various aspects including her Facebook account, her friends and also touching her chastity. In her cross examinati on, PW1 admitted that when the appellants were apprehended, sh e visited the police station with her parents and had an occasion to see t hem. She however, denied that she identified the appellants in test i dentification parade as she had seen them in the police station. 21. The father of the victim deposed as PW 2. He stated that on December 25, 2015 there was an altercation between the vi ctim and her mother and the victim left the house over such altercation. When she did not return, PW 2 and others started searching fo r her. 11 However, no information could be received until the morn ing of December 26, 2015. On December 27, 2015 the victim again le ft her house at about 10 am/11 am in absence of PW 2. When s he did not return until afternoon, PW 2 started looking for her. H e managed the credentials of the Facebook account of the victim from w here PW 2 came to know that she had left a message on her Facebook th at she was proceeding towards Punjab. PW 2 immediately rang up over Child Line when he was advised to go to Howrah Station. He wen t there and provided the photographs of the victim to the representa tives of Child Line. On the advice of the Child Line, PW 2 lodged a co mplaint with the police. PW 2 further stated that on the date of lodgi ng the written complaint, he received phone call at about 8/8:30 pm from Madhupur GRPS that his daughter was traced out. On the followin g morning, PW 2 along with his wife and son went to Madhupur GRPS and came to know about the incident from one Assistant Commissioner of Police of Madhupur GRPS. He was informed that the victim was take n to hospital for her medical examination which was at a dista nce. Thereafter, PW 2 returned to Kolkata upon assurance by p olice that the victim would be taken to Howrah Station by train a nd would be handed over to his custody on the following morning. Later on, in the following morning, PW 2 received a call from police personnel. He immediately went to Howrah station accompanied by his br other-in- law. Upon reaching Howrah, his daughter was medically exam ined 12 and, thereafter, she was handed over to PW 2. PW 2 was a lso cross- examined on behalf of the appellants at length. However, not hing favourable appears to have been elucidated in such cross- examination. 22. The mother of the victim was examined as PW 3. She corroborated the statements made by PW 2. She stated that her daughter went away from her house. From the Facebook accou nt of the victim, she came to know that the victim was travelling b y Amritsar Express to reach to one of her friends of Ludhi ana. She further stated that the matter was brought to the notic e of Child Line. Later on, the victim was recovered at Madhupur Station. The victim was medically examined at Madhupur as well as Howrah an d subsequently, she was given into the custody of PW 3. PW 3 also signed on a seizure list through which the vaginal swab of the victim was seized. She proved her signature. 23. A Sub-Inspector of Police was examined as PW 4. He stated that on December 27, 2015 he was posted at Madhupur Po lice Station as Officer-in-Charge of GRPS. On the said date, he receive d a WhatsApp message from Child Line, Deoghar to rescue the vic tim from Punjab Mail. Upon receiving such information, PW 4 form ed a team of RPF personnel and GRPF personnel. When the train arrived a t station, a search was conducted by the team and the victim was found in the military compartment of the train in an unconscious stat e. One 13 another person from the said compartment was also detained . The victim was taken to retiring room and the father of the vi ctim was informed over phone. After regaining senses, the victim disclo sed before a lady constable in the team that she was forced to consume liquor by three persons who committed rape upon her repeated ly. Such statement was recorded by the lady constable and placed before PW 4. He treated such statement as First Information Report and registered Madhupur Rail PS Case No. 00 of 2015 dated D ecember 28, 2015 under Sections 376(2)(g)/376D/120B of the Indian P enal Code and under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. PW 4 proved the endor sement of receipt and his signature on the written complaint. He also filled the formal F.I.R. which he proved. PW 4 further stated that after registering the case, he himself took up the investigation and apprehended the detained person on suspicion. In the course of investigation, he sent the victim girl to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar for medical examination with an application to constitute a medical board. After such medical examination of the victim, PW 4 also examined the remaining available witnesses and recorded their statements. Within 24 hours, PW 4 handed over the victim a s well as the appellant Manjrish Tripathi together with the case d iary and connected papers to Howrah GRPS as the place of occurrenc e falls under the jurisdiction of Howrah GRPS. PW 4 also handed over the wearing apparels of the victim to the Officer-in-Charge of H owrah PS 14 which was seized under a seizure list. PW 5 proved his sign ature on the seizure list. He also identified the seized wearing ap parels of the victim in Court (Mat Exhibit 1 collectively). 24. A lady constable before whom the victim narrated the incid ent deposed as PW 5. She stated that on December 27, 2015 i n the evening she received a phone call from PW 4. As per the instr uctions of PW 4, she went to Madhupur Railway Station and was informed by PW 4 that a girl was travelling in Amritsar Express without informing her parents. When the train reached Madhupur Station, she along with others started searching for the girl. The victim was u ltimately recovered from the military compartment of the train in sem i- conscious condition. The victim was removed to retiring room o f Madhupur Railway Station from the military compartmen t. One person who was sitting beside the victim was apprehended by PW 4 for interrogation. PW 5 and another lady police officer r emained with the victim during the night. When the victim regained senses, she informed PW 5 that she boarded the train from Howrah Station. After 10/15 minutes of departure of the train, she was forced to consume liquor. Thereafter, the victim went to the toilet in tha t compartment. One of the three persons who forced her to drink, accomp anied the victim to the toilet and when she was about to come out f rom the toilet, the person entered into the toilet forcefully. He committed rape upon the victim inside the toilet. Thereafter, the second of the three 15 men also entered the toilet and committed rape upon the victim. Both of them committed rape upon the victim in turns for six times. PW 5 also stated that she was informed by the victim that she was taken back from the toilet by the aforesaid appellants who commit ted rape upon the victim and was laid on a seat of the compartmen t. The appellants were also planning to throw the victim out of the train. PW 5 further stated that PW 4 recorded the statement of the victim in her presence. She put her signature on such recording which she proved (Exhibit 1/4). 25. PW 5 also accompanied the victim to Deoghar Government Hospital for medical examination. Later on PW 5 and others accompanied the victim to Howrah GRPS and handed over the victim to Howrah GRPS along with one of the appellants appre hended from the military compartment. PW 5 identified the said person in Court as Manjrish Tripathi. PW 5 also handed over the wearing ap parels of the victim to Howrah GRPS which was seized under a seizure list. She proved her signature on such seizure list dated December 29, 201 5. She was also examined by Howrah GRPS. PW 5 identified the s eized wearing apparels of the victim. 26. A medical officer of Howrah District Hospital deposed as PW 6. He stated that on December 30, 2015 he conducted potency test of the appellant Manjrish Tripathi in connection with Howrah GRPS Case No. 187 of 2015 dated December 29, 2015. On that date, he could not 16 form any opinion in such examination. He again examined the said appellant on January 13, 2016 and upon such examinati on, PW 6 opined that the said appellant was quite capable of perfor ming sexual intercourse. He prepared a report in this regard which he prov ed (Exhibit 10). 27. PW 6 further stated that on January 27, 2016 the appella nt Pankaj Kumar was brought to him for potency test in conn ection with Howrah GRPS Case No. 187 of 2015 dated December 29, 201 5. However, such examination could not be conducted as the appel lant Pankaj Kumar refused his examination. Howrah GRPS Case No. 187 of 2015 dated December 29, 2015 6 prepared a report in this regard upon which the appellant noted his refusal. Such report w as admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit 11. 28. PW 6 also conducted potency test upon the appellant Balak Ram Yadav on January 13, 2016 in connection with th e said case. However, PW 6 could not come to a conclusion on such examin ation on December 29, 2015 and January 27, 2016. Appellant Balak Ram Yadav was again examined by PW 6 on February 10, 2016 an d on such examination PW 6 opined that the said appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse. He proved his report in this r egard (Exhibit 12). 29. Another medical officer and a psychological specialist depo sed as PW 7. She stated that on January 6, 2016 she examined the victim 17 produced by Howrah GRPS. PW 7 also stated that she exam ined the victim after nine days of the alleged incident. She narrat ed the seven injuries found by her on the person of the victim, in her deposition. She further stated that as the victim came late on the nin th day of the incident, some of the evidence might not be available. She also stated that no external injuries were found on her private part s including vagina. The vaginal swab of the victim was collected but at that time, the victim was menstruating. PW 7 also could not examine t he inner parts of the vagina of the victim properly due to menstrua tion. She, however, found the hymen of the victim ruptured. PW 7 pro ved her medical report (Exhibit 8/1). 30. A medical officer from Deoghar Sadar Hospital was exami ned as PW 8. She stated that a medical board was constituted under directions of Deputy Superintendent, Deoghar Sadar Hospi tal consisting of Dr. L. N. Pandit, orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. L.P. Brahamchari, Dental surgeon, Dr. M. K. Lal, Radiologist and herself. She examined the victim on December 28, 2015 brought by RP F, Madhupur. PW8 identified the RPF personnel by their names a nd designation in her deposition. She further stated that on i nternal examination of the victim, she found a) no foreign body and no external hair present in the private parts; b) hymen found ruptur ed. At the time of examination, seminal fluid found present on the vagin al cavity at the time of examination. Vaginal swab was taken in two slides and 18 was sent for histopathological examination. Pathological examination was made by pathologist of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and r eport in this regard was submitted. PW 8 perused the said report. The v ictim was sent to dental surgeon, orthopaedic surgeon and radiologist for age determination. She went through such report and the age o f the victim was assessed between 14 years and 15 years. 31. PW 8 further stated in her deposition that after examin ation, her opinion was, a) “Each of the patient was 14 years to 15 years; b) Signs of rape was present; c) Seminal fluid found present on the red vinyl cavity at th e time of examination; d) Sign of forceful intercourse was present; e) Pathological report shows spermatozoa was present on the vaginal Swab; f) Mark of violence present on the left hand palm 2 to 3 cm abrasion present, left hand ring finger nail injured, blackish to bluish colour plus swelling.” PW 8 described the wearing apparel of the victim as 1) bla ck coloured bra 2) black T-shirt 3) purple coloured sweater 4) light sky jeans pant, which were handed over to the team of GRPS. She proved th e report prepared by her and the other members of the Board which contained the signature of PW 8 (Exhibit 2/1 and Exhibit 2/2). She also identified the wearing apparels of the victim in Court. 19 32. Another doctor from Deoghar hospital and a member of the medical board was examined as PW 9. He stated that on Dec ember 28, 2015, he was a member of a medical board constituted fo r medical examination of the victim besides three other members. PW 9 further stated that on examination he advised x-ray AP view pelv is including iliac crests, x-ray elbow AP view, x-ray AP view of both w rists. He proved his signature on the advice (Exhibit 13). He furth er stated that after the tests, reports were produced before the medical board and on the basis of physical appearance dentition and radiological finding in OPG, pelvis wrist and elbow, the age of the victim was estima ted to be between 14 to 15 years. He proved the report prepared in h is pen (Exhibit 13/1) and his signature on the findings (Exhi bit 14). He also proved his signature on the report of the medical board (Exhibit 2/3). 33. Another member of medical board was examined as PW 10. He stated that on December 28, 2015 he examined the teeth of the victim as a member of a medical board constituted by the superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Deoghar. He advised x-ray of jaws and teeth of the victim. He also noted number of her teet h, erected teeth, perused x-ray plates and found his opinion along wi th other members of the board. He further stated that on the basis of physical appearance, dentition, radiological findings of jaws (OP G), pelvis, wrist, elbow, each of the victim was estimated between 14 and 15 years. PW 10 proved his signatures on the report of the medi cal board 20 (Exhibit 14/1 and Exhibit 14/2) he also proved his signa ture on the opinion of the medical board and the x-ray plate. 34. Another doctor of the medical board deposed as PW 11. He stated that on December 28, 2015 the victim was brought to S adar Hospital, Deoghar. She was examined by the gynaecologist a nd PW 11 was supplied with the slides of vaginal swab of the victim. PW 11 examined the said slides and found 1) epithelia cells, 2) artefacts and 3) spermatozoa. He proved the pathological report prepared in his pen and signature (Exhibit 16). PW 11 also stated that on December 28, 2015, he was a member of a medical board constituted by t he Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar to determin e the age of the victim. He further stated that the board examined the victim and advised x-rays and OPG. X-ray of pelvis, x-ray of elbow, x-ray of wrist and OPG were done. PW 11 proved his signature on the OPD sl ip. He wrote the opinion for the board on behalf of all the mem bers and proved the opinion as well as his signature thereon. He also proved the x-ray plates of elbow, pelvis and that of the wrist. 35. Another medical officer attached to Nirikhan Kendra was examined as PW 12. She stated that on February 20, 2016 th e victim was admitted under her and she was interrogated by poli ce in that connection. She stated before police that the victim was und er severe mental trauma as she was sexually assaulted. 21 36. A Judicial Magistrate deposed as PW 13. He stated that h e conducted a Test Identification Parade inside the jail premise s on February 4, 2016 in connection with Howrah GRPS Case No. 187 of 2015 dated December 29, 2015. He further stated that in s uch test identification parade, the victim identified appellant P ankaj Kumar, placed amongst 10 others, as the person who along with t wo other army personnel forcefully poured liquor into her mouth w hile she was travelling in Amritsar Mail train on December 27, 2015. T he victim also disclosed before PW 13 that after the liquor was pour ed in her mouth, she became semi-unconscious. Thereafter, she was taken t o washroom of the train and was subjected to rape by such persons including the suspect. PW13 proved the report of test id entification parade prepared by him. 37. A Sub-Inspector of police deposed as PW 14. He stated t hat on January 5, 2016 the inspector in charge of Howrah GRP S endorsed him with the investigation of Howrah GRPS Case No. 187 of 2015 dated December 29, 2015. Accordingly, he took up invest igation of the case as 4th investigating officer. In his part of investigation, he seized a sealed packet from the office of Superintendent Sadar Hospita l Deoghar produced by the lab technician Bijoy Kishore P rosad in presence of ASI Ram Krishna Sharma of Madhupr GRPS unde r a seizure list. He proved such seizure list. He also recorded the statement of Dr. Manish Lal, Dr. Nivedita Kumari, Dr. Na ndalal 22 Pandit, Dr. Lakshman Prosad of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar . On January 6, 2016 he returned to Howrah GRPS and handed over the case diary to the inspector in charge with the seized articles. 38. Another police personnel was examined as PW 15. He stated that on December 30, 2015, the inspector in charge of Howrah GRPS supplied him two photographs of two male persons and ask ed him to go to Gauhati and Tripura to the different battalions o f BSF for the identification of the persons in the photograph. Pursuan t to such directions, PW 15 visited the transit camp, Army Departme nt and LGBI airport. On the following day, PW 15 received info rmation that two persons were detained by the CISF on the basis of the photographs. PW 15 went there and the two detained persons admitted the photographs to be of them. They disclosed th eir name as Bala Ram Yadav and Pankaj Kumar. Accordingly, he arreste d the two persons and after observing all formalities he returned with the arrested persons on January 1, 2016. PW 15 also seized mobile phones, SIM cards, trolley bag and identity card of Bala Ram from his position under a seizure list which he proved (Exhibit 22 ). Similarly, a micromax mobile with SIM No. 9774321383, micromax mob ile with SIM No. 9478702806, one black coloured school bag, iden tity card of Pankaj Kumar were seized by PW 15 under another seizur e list (Exhibit 23). He also recorded the statement of Dipak Kumar, inspector of CISF, LSI Hem Kanwar, Constable of CISF Dar ad Yogesh 23 under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . On January 2, 2016, he came back to Howrah GRPS and hande d over the arrested persons with the seized articles to the inspector in charge. The seized articles were handed over to the Malkhana officer of the Howrah GRPS. 39. A police officer deposed as PW 16. He stated that on December 29, 2015 he was posted at Howrah GRPS as a prob ationary inspector. He used to know Sub-Inspector Asit Baran Nath of the said GRPS and was conversant with his handwriting and signatur e. PW 16 proved the endorsement of receipt of the written complaint as well as formal FIR in the pen of SI Asit Baran Nath. He further stated that he was endorsed with the investigation of the case of Howrah GRPS Case No. 187 of 2015 dated December 29, 2015. In the course of investigation, PW 16 narrated the various steps taken b y him. He seized the wearing apparels of the victim under a seizure list and arranged for recording the statement of the victim under S ection 164 of the Cr.P.C. He also forwarded the arrested accused Manjr ish. He also sent two teams of police personnel to Madhupur Keul and Gauhati. Such teams on its return submitted their part o f the case diary which was collected by PW 16. 40. PW 16 further submitted that PW 15 along with the team arrested the appellant Balak Ram Yadav and Pankaj Kumar from Gauhati. PW 16 forwarded the said appellant in Court. He also 24 submitted prayers for holding Test Identification Parade. He also recorded the statements of available witnesses. On Janua ry 6, 2016, PW 16 handed over the investigation upon return of the in vestigating officer from leave. 41. Another inspector of police deposed as PW 17. He stated th at he took up investigation of the case on February 10, 2016. During his part of investigation, he arranged for medical examinati on of the appellant Balak Ram Yadav. He collected the samples of ur ethral swab and urethral smear of the said accused. He also examined the medical officer and recorded his statement. PW 17 proved the seizu re list dated February 10, 2016. He also examined available witnesses and sent the urethral swab and urethral smear slides for scientific fore nsic examination on February 11, 2016. The connected papers wer e proved by PW 17 (Exhibit 28). 42. Another part investigating officer of the case was exami ned as PW 18. He stated that he was endorsed with the investigati on of the case on January 6, 2016. He has also described the vari ous steps taken by him in course of his tenure of investigation. He also recorded the statements of available witnesses, seized various articles including the birth certificate of the victim under separate seizure l ist. He also collected the wearing apparels of the victim and sent the same f or forensic examination on January 11, 2016 through a chall an, Exhibit 32. He also examined the mother of the victim and the doct or who 25 examined the victim and recorded their statements under Sectio n 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Later on, owing to his tra nsfer, PW 18 handed over the investigation to PW 17. 43. On conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, the appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Crimi nal Procedure Code. In such examination the appellants appear to have been confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In such examination, the appellants have pleaded innocence having been falsely im plicated in the case. They, however, declined to adduce any defence evidence. 44. From the evidence on record it transpires that the victim l eft her house, may be due to some spat with her parents, and was heading to one of her friends at Ludhiana, Punjab. Ev idence on record, more specifically the evidence of the parents of t he victim, namely, PW 2 and PW 3, reveals that the victim left the house a fter she had altercation with her mother. It also transpires that the victim left her house after such altercations previously as well. Both PW 2 and PW 3 have stated that when the victim did not return t o her house after a considerable time, they approached the Chil d Line and on the advice of such Child Line, they also lodged a comp laint with regard to missing of the victim with the police. In the mean time, PW 2 and PW 3 managed to log in into the Facebook account o f the victim 26 from where they came to know that the victim was travellin g to one of her friends at Ludhiana by train. 45. Such facts narrated by PW 2 and PW 3 get corroborated by the evidence of PW 1, the victim herself. In her deposition , PW 1 stated that after having a spat with her parents, she went to How rah station and took a train namely Amritsar express for travelling to one of her friends at Ludhiana. 46. According to the evidence of PW 1, she boarded the train in a military compartment pretending it to be a general compartm ent. In such compartment of the train, the victim was approached by the three appellants. All the three appellants were milita ry personnel. According to the narration of PW 1, while she was havi ng chats with the appellants, they allegedly asked the victim if she woul d like to consume liquor which she answered in the negative. Thereafter, the appellants forcefully poured wine into her mouth result ing in her semi-unconsciousness. The victim was then accompanied by the appellants to the toilet. According to the case made o ut by the prosecution, when the victim tried to come out of the t oilet, one of the appellants pushed her inside, undressed her and committe d sexual intercourse forcefully upon her. After that, another appella nt also committed sexual assault upon the victim and thereafter the two appellants sexually violated the victim at least six tim es in turns. It is further case of the prosecution that after sexually viola ting the victim 27 repeatedly, she was brought out of the toilet and was la id on her feet in the compartment from where the victim was recovered by the police personnel of Madhupur GRPS. 47. The incident is alleged to have started after 10/15 minu tes of the departure of the train from Howrah station at abo ut 1:55 AM and it is said to have continued between 1:55 AM and 2:45 A M. Two of the appellants, who committed sexual assault upon the vic tim allegedly, absconded from the train whereas the person who made the vi ctim to consume liquor remained and was detained at the time of recovery of the victim. 48. The officer in charge of Madhupur GRPS was examined as PW 4. He made a categorical statement that he received a messa ge from Child Line on December 27, 2015 to rescue the victim who wa s travelling by Train No. 13049 up, Punjab Mail. Upon su ch information, PW 4 formed a rescue team of police personne l. PW 5 was a member of such team. The rescue team made a search for the victim in the train on its arrival at Madhupur station and rescued the victim in an unconscious state. The evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 also discloses that the appellant Manjrish Tripathi was also apprehended from the compartment where the victim was found. The aforesaid witn esses have also testified that upon regaining consciousness, the victim disclosed before them that she was forced to consume liquor by three persons who committed rape upon her. The victim recorded a 28 statement before the police personnel which was treated as t he written complaint and on the basis of such statement, a specific cas e was started. 49. The evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 also discloses that the vi ctim was taken to Deoghar Sadar hospital for her medical exami nation. A medical board was constituted for her examination. She w as examined by the medical board. The members of such medical board w ere examined by the prosecution as PW 8, PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 . The aforesaid witnesses have testified that the victim was produc ed before Deoghar Sadar Hospital by police personnel from GRPS. T hey described the nature of injuries found on the person of th e victim and the tests conducted by the medical board for determination of her age. The evidence of PW 8 clearly indicates that upon examina tion of the victim, signs of rape were found present, seminal fluid wa s detected in the vaginal cavity of the victim and there were signs of f orceful intercourse upon her. The evidence of such witness also disclosed that there were marks of violence detected on the person of the victi m and pathological report showed presence of spermatozoa in the va ginal swab. The evidence of PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11, besides no ting the injuries found on the person of the victim, mainly confined to determination of age of the victim which according to the op inion of the board was opined between 14 and 15 years. 29 50. Since the alleged incident took place on a running train and the police personnel of Madhupur GRPS intercepted and reco vered the victim from such train, a zero First Information Report was registered by it. Later, the victim was medically examined by Deoghar S adar Hospital. However, ultimately, the case stood transferred to Howrah GRPS on the grounds of jurisdiction, from where the t rain had initially departed. 51. The victim was brought to Howrah GRPS and at its behest, she was again medically examined. PW 7 is the medical officer who examined the victim, albeit, after 9 days of the incident. On such examination, PW 7 described as many as 7 injuries found on the person of victim and her hymen was found ruptured by PW 7. The nature of injuries described by PW 7 appears to be in quit e consonance of the narration of incident given by the victim in her deposition as well as her statement recorded under Section 1 64 of the Cr.P.C. The narration of incident given by PW 1 seems to be consistent with that described in her statement recorded under Sect ion 164 of the Cr.P.C. The chronology of events described by PW 1 is du ly corroborated by PW2 and PW3. The parents of the victim, P W 2 and PW 3 stated to have approached the Child Line authorities upon elopement of the victim. There is evidence on record that the Madhupur GRPS intercepted and rescued the victim from i nside a train on the basis of inputs from Child Line. PW 12 is a Doctor under 30 whose care; the victim was admitted in a Nirikhan Kendra, after the incident. He has testified that the victim was traumati sed after the incident. He has categorically stated that the history of the patient was that she was sexually assaulted. 52. As noted hereinbefore, one of the appellants who allegedl y made the victim forcefully to consume liquor was detain ed from the compartment of the train along with the victim. Two ot her appellants, who were alleged to have committed sexual assault upon t he victim, absconded. The police took all the steps to trace out the aforesaid appellants namely Pankaj Kamar and Balak Ram Yadav. T heir photographs were sent to several authorities of the Army a nd paramilitary forces. Ultimately the two appellants were a rrested from Gauhati airport by the intervention of CISF on the ba sis of the photographs sent to them. The two appellants were brought back to Kolkata where they were put on test identification para de. They were identified by the victim in such TI parade as the persons wh o sexually violated the victim. PW 6 is the Doctor who examined the app ellants, conducted potency test and opined that the aforesaid three appellants were quite capable of sexual intercourse. 53. The Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the test identific ation parade i.e. PW13, has testified that the victim identifi ed the appellants in the test identification parade. The suspect/appellan t placed himself at his choice in the parade. There is nothing in the eviden ce of PW 13 31 that the appellant had raised any point at the time of this identification parade that he was shown to the victim pri or to such parade. At the time of examination of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant was confronted with the st atement of PW 13 with regard to holding of the test identification par ade and his identification therein. In answer to question No. 41, th e appellant replied to the effect that ‘it is all false. I am innoc ent’. In that view of the facts, such objection raised by the appellants in course of hearing does not stand. 54. In Gireesan Nair (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that it was for the prosecution to prove that T IP was conducted in a fair manner and that all necessary measures an d precautions were taken before conducting the TIP. In th e facts of such case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also noted that the witnesses had the opportunity of seeing the accused before the condu ct of the TIP. Not only have the witnesses deposed that they had seen t he suspects before the TIP, even Accused 2, at the end of the 1st TIP, had raised agreements that the suspects were all photographed , videographed and were shown to the witnesses from the cabin of the IO. 55. However, as noted above no such allegation was ever made by the appellants prior to or during the TIP or even during the trial of the case. We have noted the answer given by the appellant duri ng his 32 examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In such view of the facts, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou rt in Gireesan Nair (supra) cannot be applied in the facts of the present case. 56. In the light of the discussions made hereinbefore, we fin d no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement of convictio n and order of sentence. We affirm the same. 57. Consequently, the appeals being CRA (DB) 62 of 2023, CR A (DB) 136 of 2023 and CRA (DB) 156 of 2023 are hereby d ismissed. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 58. Period of detention already undergone by the appellants during enquiry, investigation or trial shall be set off aga inst the substantial punishment in accordance with the provisions of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. 59. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this judgment, if a pplied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with a ll necessary legal formalities. [MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.] 60. I agree. [DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]