SK JALAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SK. Saheb Ali and SK. Kutubuddin the opposite party no. 1 and 2, respectively, were found not guilty to the charge under Section 376 IPC by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 1, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2006 and were acquitted therefrom. SK. Jalal, father of the victim girl Jahanara Khatoon has challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the order of acquittal of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 in this revision application.

(2.) THE factual aspect is stated below in short :

(3.) MR. Mondal submitted that the prosecutrix i.e. Jaharana Khatoon who has examined as P.W. 3 in the Trial has stated that Sk. Saheb the respondent no. 2 forced her to go inside the taxi on 13.12.2004 about 7 P.M. According to the P.W. 3, Sk. Saheb came to her house and promised to marry her and after giving assurance to marry forced her to go inside the taxi. They came to Digha at night by the same taxi and checked in a hotel. They resided there as husband and wife and co-habited. When Sk. Saheb co-habiting with her she raised resistance on the plea that their marriage was not solemnized. She further stated that on her protest, Sk. Saheb told her that he would marry her and after his assurance to marry he cohabited with her. MR. Mondal contended that since Sk. Saheb assured her that had would marry her, the prosecutrix (P.W. 3) allowed him to co-habit with her. MR. Mondal submitted that have not there been any such assurance, the prosecutrix (P.W. 3) would not have allowed Sk. Saheb to co-habit with her. Therefore, he submits, there was misconception on the part of the prosecutrix upon misrepresentation by Sk. Saheb. Therefore, it can not be said that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Learned Trial Court adjudged the matter from an erroneous angle and has come to a wrong findings that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.