BAIDYA DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgement and Order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Siliguri in connection with S. Case No. 75(S) of 2008/S. T. No. 11/2009 thereby convicting the appellant, Baidya Das, for committing offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5000/-. The Judgement impugned has been challenged on the following grounds:-

(2.) On 20.09.23007, one Subhas Biswas lodged one FIR with the Siliguri Police Station alleging therein that his daughter, Purnima Biswas, aged about 13- 14 years, allured by Baidya Das (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) had sexual intercourse with him on false promise that he would marry her. Purnima in course of time became pregnant and that was manifested in her appearance.

(3.) On questioning, she disclosed that Baidya Das promised to marry her and raped her in the common kitchen of the tenanted house. Baidya Das, the appellant, was asked to marry Purnima, but he denied the entire fact. His father and mother also threatened Subhas Biswas, father of Purnima, with dire consequences in case of disclosure. The appellant also advised Subhas Biswas to get the foetus of Purnima aborted. The landlady Kamala Sarkar also threatened Purnima and wife of Subhas Biswas not to disclose the name of the appellant and in case of such disclosure, she would evict Subhas Biswas from the tenanted room. On the basis of the said FIR, Siliguri Police Station Case No. 216 of 2007 dated 10.09.2007 under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and, accordingly, the trial commenced. The learned trial court examined as many as 10 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The FIR, formal FIR, medical reports, statements of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, X-ray plate, birth register, birth certificate, pathological reports etc. were admitted into the evidence on behalf of the prosecution and marked as Ext. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence in course of the trial. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the learned trial court found that the prosecution brought home the charge against the appellant and, accordingly, the judgement impugned was passed.