DEBDAS MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.6.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2014 arising out of Sessions Case No.22 of 2014/507 of 2014 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer further imprisonment for two months.

(2.) Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 12.8.2012 at around 12 noon, the victim girl aged about 4 years could not be traced at her residence. Her mother started searching for her and finally recovered her from the house of the appellant. She was found sobbing and had injuries in her private parts. She told her mother that the appellant had tempted her to follow him into his room on the allurement of giving her food and thereafter had raped her. She was treated at Jirat Hospital on the self-same day. On the written complaint of the mother of the victim, P.W.1, Balagarh P. S. Case No.178 of 2012 dated 12.8.2012 under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. In the course of investigation, the victim was again medically examined during investigation. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed the Court of Sessions and transferred to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Hooghly for trial and disposal. Charge was framed under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. In conclusion of trial, trial court by judgment and order dated 18.6.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant argued that the allegation of penetrative sexual assault on the victim has not been proved beyond doubt. Medical evidence with regard to injury on the private parts of the victim is contradictory. Time of examination of the victim at Balagarh PHC appears to be prior to the incident. Hence, there is serious doubt with regard to authencity of the medical report. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses including the victim appear to be embellished and are at variance from the case narrated in First Information Report. P.W.1, mother of the victim admitted that there was civil dispute between the parties. Possibility of false implication is writ large in the facts of the case. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.