LAWS(CAL)-2011-7-22

KASHMIR SK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On July 29, 2011
KASHMIR SK. @ SK. KASHMIR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 26.05.2008 and sentence dated 27.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Fifth Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 51 of 2007 (Sessions Trial No. 27(2) of 2007). By such order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Kashmir Sk. @ Sk. Kashmir under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 05.10.2005 at about 8 p.m. one Rahima Khatun, minor sister of the complainant Md. Harun Seikh went outside to attend nature's call while accused Kashmir Seikh took her to a desolate place and committed rape upon her with a promise of marrying her. THEreafter, he took her to another married sister of the complainant namely, Anguri Bibi in Milki and then fled away. Over the issue there was a Salish in the locality. But the accused refused to accept the verdict of the Salish. On the basis of such complaint, the case was initiated being no. EBPS Case No. 500 of 2005 dated 12.10.2005 under Sections 493/376 IPC which resulted in filing of charge-sheet on 03.04.2006. Charge was accordingly framed under Sections 493/376 IPC, read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. THE prosecution has tendered 13 witnesses and adduced and exhibited nine documents to prove the case while no defence witness has been tendered. THE defence case appears to be a denial of the above allegation.

(3.) While examining the evidentiary values of all the aforesaid oral testimonies and documentary evidence on record the learned Trial Court has carefully considered that the testimony of the prosecution witness excepts P.Ws. 7 and 8 have not been shaken in their cross-examination and credibility of their evidence was beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction is accordingly based on unimpeachable testimony of aforesaid witnesses.