Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Suptan Marak vs State Of Tripura on 21 July, 2026
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19059 of 2025)
SUPTAN MARAK APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Under the impugned judgment, the High Court has
affirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence under
Section 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 imposed by the Trial Court vide
its judgment and sentence dated 13.12.2022.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
on merits, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court, as victim is aged 12
years and is a partially and mentally retarded girl, and
she has supported the prosecution and her version has been
duly corroborated by her mother (PW-2) and her younger
sister (PW-4). Dr. Helina Debbarma (PW-14) has examined the
Signature Not Verified
victim and found that the condition of victim was
Digitally signed by
MINI
Date: 2026.07.23
11:10:50 IST
Reason: precarious and she complained of pain in vulva with
excessive bleeding, repeated vomiting etc.; and the victim
1
was not in a condition to move even; and excessive blood
was oozing out through vaginal intorious and her hymen was
freshly torn.
4. In view of the above evidence, even if the DNA
profiling of the blood stains found on the victim’s cloths,
is not found conclusively belonging to the blood of the
appellant, we are of the considered view that the unshaken
oral testimony of the POCSO victim duly corroborated by her
mother and her younger sister, cannot be disbelieved only
on this ground.
5. Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction under
Section 4 of the POCSO Act is maintained.
6. It is argued that the Trial Court and the High Court
as well, have not specifically referred to the applicant’s
conviction under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, therefore,
the maximum sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the
appellant is not sustainable inasmuch as the appellant will
have to undergo imprisonment for the remainder of his life
and he shall never be released from jail.
7. It is submitted that non-mentioning of sub-Section
(2) of Section 4 of the POCSO Act, in particular, vitiates
the sentencing order passed by the Trial Court as well as
the High Court. It is also submitted that the appellant was
aged about 33 years at the time of occurrence having no
antecedents. Hence, there is a possibility of the
appellant’s reformation and thus, imposition of
imprisonment for the remainder of the life is not warranted
2
in the facts of the case.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
has opposed the submissions. According to him, the
appellant has been found guilty of commission of offence
under the POCSO Act concurrently by the Trial Court and the
High Court, therefore, no leniency should be shown.
9. Although, we are not convinced with the submission
made by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the
absence of specific reference to sub-Section 2 of Section 4
of the POCSO Act by the Trial Court and the High Court, the
sentencing part is vitiated, because any reference to
Section 4 would attract the provisions contained in sub-
Section (1) and/or sub-Section (2) of Section 4, depending
upon the facts of the case which attracts any of these sub-
Sections.
10. Once it is established that the victim was less than
sixteen years of age, the only provision with which the
appellant could have been convicted and sentenced, is sub-
Section (2) of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, non-
mentioning of particular sub-Sections of Section 4 of the
POCSO Act, would not render the sentencing part of the
Trial Court order and affirmed by the High Court, as
illegal or vitiated.
11. At the same time, we feel that considering the age
of the appellant and lack of antecedents, as also for the
fact that there is no material that his conduct in jail so
far is not good, the sentence for remainder of the life
3
which is the maximum sentence which can be imposed under
sub-Section (2) of Section 4, deserves to be reduced to the
minimum sentence of twenty years which can also be imposed
under sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
12. Accordingly, we allow the Criminal Appeal in part
and reduce the sentence of life imprisonment i.e.
imprisonment for the remainder of the life to a sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for twenty years.
13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
appellant for the offences under Section 4(2) of the POCSO
Act, we modify/reduce the sentence of life imprisonment
i.e. for remainder of the life to rigorous imprisonment for
twenty years.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
………………………………………………………J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
………………………………………………………J.
[SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR]
NEW DELHI;
July 21, 2026
4
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.12 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 19059/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-07-2024
in CRLAJ No. 26/2023 passed by the High Court of Tripura at
Agarthala]
SUPTAN MARAK Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondent(s)
IA No. 289231/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
Date : 21-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Soniya Mathur, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kamlakshi Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Yudhister Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Nikita Gill, Adv.
Ms. Divya Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Safeena Khan, Adv.
Ms. Mansi Sridhar, Adv.
Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv.
Dr. Lipika Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Jyoti Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
5
2. The appeal is allowed in part, in terms of the
Singed Order placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(MINI) (AKSHAY KUMAR BHORIA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
6
