SUSHEN BARMAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 29/7/2017/31/7/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Coochbehar in Sessions Trial No. 12(II)11 (Sessions Case No. 146 of 2011) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC with a further direction that the fine amount, if realised, will be paid to the minor daughter (PW6) for maintenance.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 23/1/2010 at about 11:00 P.M. the appellant broke through the fencing of the house of the victim (PW6) and entered the room and forcibly raped her. When PW6 raised alarm, the appellant fled away.

(3.) Thus, it appears that the prosecution is a divided house whether the appellant had been detained by PW1 and PW2 till the neighbours had arrived and thereafter, had fled away by dashing them. Furthermore, reason for delay in lodging the FIR also has not been proved. Panchayat Pradhan was not examined to probabilise the explanation of PW 1 that a salish proposed after the incident but the same failed as the appellant did not turn up. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that PW1 and PW6 would wait for an amicable settlement when it is alleged that the appellant had forcibly raped the victim and after being tied up at the spot forcibly ran away therefrom. If such conduct of the appellant is believed, then the possibility of an amicable settlement appears to be extremely bleak. It is most improbable that the victim girl and her mother under such circumstances wait for seven days for an amicable settlement before lodging FIR. Hence, the explanation offered for the delay in lodging FIR appears to be artificial and not inspire confidence.