BHUBAN MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.2013 and 25.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Basirhat North 24 Parganas in Sessions trial no. 4(6)09 arising out Session Case No 9(11)08 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 17.1.2007 at 8 p.m. when none of the in laws of the victim were at home, her uncle in law came to her house and entered her room while she was putting her child to sleep. Suddenly, he gagged her mouth and thereafter committed rape on her. He threatened the victim not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise she would face dire consequences. On the pretext of going to the toilet the victim escaped by locking the door from outside. She came back with her neighbour but the appellant escaped by removing a bamboo fencing around the house. She went to the local panchayet members who claimed that they were busy. On the next day, she went to the police station. They assured her that police force would be sent from the local police outpost but such help did not arrive. Accordingly, on 21.1.2007 she lodged written complaint against the appellant alleging rape. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed against the appellant under section 376 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, learned trial judge by judgement and order dated 24.9.2013 and 25.9.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that version of the prosecutrix PW 1 with regard to forcible sexual assault is highly unnatural and improbable. She did not raise any hue and cry and FIR was registered two days after the incident. Other prosecution witnesses particularly PW 3 Sudhansu Pramanik, panchayet member as well as Minati Mondal, PW 8 have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Medical evidence is also inconclusive. Hence, evidence of PW 1 remains uncorroborated and the prosecution case is liable to be failed.