NRIPEN BARMAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.10.91 passed by Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Sessions Case No. 55/91, through which the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 457 and under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 years more for his conviction under Section 376 I.P.C. and the appellant was further sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/- in default, to suffer R.1. for 1 year more, on his conviction under Section 457 I.P.C. It was further ordered that both the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) In short, the prosecution case is as follows :-

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge in the judgment impugned discussed the evidence on record and observed that the victim (P.W. 1) gave a vivid description of the alleged incident in her evidence and there was no scope for doubting the veracity of her oral testimony. In coming to his ultimate conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused, the learned Judged further recorded relying on the evidence of P.W. 1 that the accused entered into her bed-room by removing the thin wooden bar by putting his fingers through a space in the upper portion of one door leaf of the door of that bed-room. He also relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 that at the relevant time of occurrence one of the iron hinges of the door leaf was in broken condition and for that reason, the said door-leaf remained slanting inwardly in that bed-room making a space allowing a gap through which any person could open that door from outside by removing a thin wooden bar with which that door was bolted from inside. The learned Judges also recorded that the evidence of P. W 1 on the point of commission of the offence of rape was impeachable. On hearing her cries, the witnesses like P.W. 6, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 and other neighbours came to her house and saw her weeping with her hair in dishevelled condition and wearing a torn saree. The learned Judge also observed that the medical evidence given by P.W. 2 Dr. Mihir Kr. Banerjee, who examined the victim two days after the occurrence that is to say on 29.4.91 was not incompatible with the prosecution case and it was quite possible that the victim, a married woman having 4 children between the age of 16 years to 4 years if raped then injuries on her vaginal canal would not occur. Regarding some discrepancies, the learned Sessions Judge observed that those inconsistencies did not go to the root of the case and after observing and concluding thus, the learned Session Judge came to a clear findings that prosecution had been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and thereafter convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as noted above.