BABU PAUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 29.01.2007 and 31.01.2007 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagar, Dist.- Nadia, in Sessions Case No. 112 (3) 05 relating to Sessions Trial No. iii of 2006 under Section 376 (1) I.P.C whereby the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 5 months, the learned Court further ordering that the said amount of fine, if paid, shall go to the de facto complainant-cum- victim, after deducting the expenses therefrom for sending the amount by money order.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.10.2004 at about 7 p.m when the de facto complainant was working on the weaving machine in the house of one Ajit Ghosh, the accused Babu Pal, who used to work on another weaving machine in an adjacent premises, suddenly came from behind and gagging her mouth with her 'orna' forcibly dragged her to the bushes behind the premises, made her to lie down on the ground, tore open the ' churidar' which was on her person as also her inner panty, undressed himself and thereafter inserted his male genital organ forcibly into her female genital organ against her wishes. Since the mouth of the de facto complainant was tied, she could not shout but in the mean time a lady in the nearby house scolded her child loudly whereupon the accused out of fear left her and fled away. The de facto complainant became senseless and upon regaining her senses found her mother to be present who took her home and thereafter they came to the P.S. and lodged the written complaint. On the basis of the said F.I.R, Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 123 of 2004 was started and investigated. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 376 I.P.C. Charge was duly framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 (1) I.P.C and upon the contents of the charge being read over and explained to the accused he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) MONTHS. 5. Though the appellant preferred the present appeal challenging the sustainability of the judgement on various grounds, Mr. Subir Debnath, learned Advocate for the appellant has frankly submitted that he is not challenging the conviction of the appellant but only the sentence imposed in the facts and circumstances of the present case.