MANIK ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated 25th February, 2008 by which the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2003 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2003 (State of WB vs. Manik Roy) convicted the accused of an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. By an order dated 26th February, 2008 the convict was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 10 years as also to pay fine of sum of Rs. 5,000.00, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for a year for the aforesaid offence.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances of the case of the prosecution briefly stated are as follows: - On 9th August 2000, the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, lodged a written complaint alleging, inter alia, that during the period between the months of Aghrayan and Chaitra of 1406 B.S she was at her maternal uncle's house in order to look after her ailing maternal grandfather. The accused Manik Roy @ Bishadu, aged about 25 years, a neighbor of the maternal uncle of the de facto complainant was a frequent visitor to the house of the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix. The maternal uncles and their respective wives were a daily labourers. The grandmother also occasionally used to remain absent. At an opportune moment in the month of Falgun ( 1406 B.S.) the accused called at the maternal uncle's house of the prosecutrix when no one was there except for the ailing grandfather in a different room. The accused entered the house talking from outside and finding the victim alone raped her. The prosecutrix out of fear and shame did not disclose the incident. Subsequently the accused on the basis of a false promise to marry made her to maintain silence and to submit for further intercourse. As a result her menstruation stopped which she brought to the notice of the accused. He again asked her to keep silence and assured that he would marry her. After 2 or 3 months had elapsed the mother of the prosecutrix noticing unusual signs suspected her and took her to a doctor when the fact that she was pregnant was discovered. Thereafter, the mother of the prosecutrix met the father of the accused. He proposed to hush up the mater in lieu of money. The prosecutrix was not willing to accept the proposal. The matter was brought to the notice of the gram panchayat. A meeting was convened on 30th July, 2000. Neither the accused person nor the members of his family appeared thereat. In the circumstances she lodged a written complaint.

(3.) MR . Amit Moitra, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: