MITHU SARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.9.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.4 (6) of 2001 by learned Judge, Special Court E.C. Act and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Alipur, South 24-Parganas thereby acquitting Tushar Kanti Guha @ Babu Guha and Anjali Chatterjee from the charges levelled against them under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 376/109 of the IPC. This revisional application has been filed by de facto complainant Mithu Sardar.

(2.) Factual background in a nutshell, is that complainant/victim was a maid servant of Opposite Party No.3, Anjali Chatterjee. On 12th Bhadra 1405 B.S. around 7/7.30 a.m. Anjali sent the complainant/petitioner to the house of O.P. No.2 Tushar Kanti Guha @ Babu Guha for bringing Rs.50. Accordingly, she had been to the house of O.P. No.2 and found that he was standing in a grilled covered veranda. She was invited by him to come inside on the pretext to show the inner portion of his flat. She entered into his house. Tushar pulled and tightened her hands with the grill of the window by a rope and tightening her mouth with his lungi raped her against her will. She was threatened with the knife and asked not to disclose the incident to anyone. Tushar also promised to pay her money whenever she required. She narrated the incident to O.P. No 3 .Anjali Chatterjee who told her that the same is a common matter now-a-days and if she becomes pregnant Tushar will arrange for her abortion. The petitioner hearing such thing started crying and seeing that Anjali gave her Rs.500 as consolation which she refused. Anjali stated to the petitioner that the police persons are all under the control of Tushar and there will no fruitful result if she informed police. She informed police about the incident. The petitioners replied that she would intimate the matter to the members of the political party and hearing the same Anjali called Tushar and made a consultation in a separate room. Thereafter, Tushar assured the petitioner to marry her and advised her to proceed to her native place as the month was Bhadra and the marriage could not have been solemnized. The petitioner disbelieved the same but got confidence when Anjali directed Tushar to bring sindur. Accordingly Tushar brought sindur and promised to the petitioner that sindur will be offered in the month of Ashwin. It has been further alleged that the petitioner was not aware that the Tushar was a married person and when on 24th day of Ashwin the petitioner went to the house of Anjali along with her brother-in-law Anjali stated that Tushar did not cohabit with the petitioner. The matter was informed to the members of club and local police station. It has been alleged further that Tushar told her that he will give her Rs. 10,000 if she withdraws the complaint.

(3.) Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a rape case is in the stature of the evidence of any injured witness and not of accomplice and the same alone is sufficient to prove the guilt of the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. He has contended further that the delay of five months to lodge the FIR in the instant case was primarily caused due to the promise of marriage made to the petitioner by the O.P. No.2 as well as by OP No.3 in addition to that the petitioner being an illiterate lady went to different places to consult the matter and also due to severe threats at the instance of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. He has also contended that the sexual offence is an unlawful interference of a woman's privacy and sanctity and the severe shock on her self-esteem and dignity and that is why the evidence of the prosecutrix should not be treated at per with other criminal offences. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate the deposition of prosecution witness, namely, prosecution witness Nos. 3, 5 and 6 as well as other witnesses including the victim and has arrived at an erroneous finding on the sole ground that there was inordinate delay and the evidence on record is full of contradictions. He has also contended that the political enmity which has been highlighted in the judgment cannot be the basis on which the evidence of the victim and other witnesses may be brushed aside. The learned Court below has made some observations against the victim in the body of the judgment lowering the dignity even of the Court. The observation of the Court touching the character of the victim should be expunged. He has also contended that principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court to deal with an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC has not been followed by the Court while appreciating the evidence which is why there is manifest illegality in the judgment. Mr. Basu, learned Counsel of the petitioner has referred the decision State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 SCC(Cri) 316, to give support to his contention. The impugned judgment may be interfered with and set aside.