LAKHAN URIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An inebriated man in a frenzy of sexual perversion outraged the modesty of the mother of a five-month old child and thereafter raped the minor. Due to severe injuries the minor ultimately expired. While the child was struggling for life, mother of the child (PW6) lodged complaint at the police station resulting in registration of Birpara Police Station Case No.57/2005 dtd. 8/6/2005 under Ss. 354/376 IPC against the appellant. Upon the death of the child, Sec. 304(II) IPC was added. In course of investigation, appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against him. Charges were framed under Ss. 354/363/376(2)(f)/304 of the Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove its case. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dtd. 20/12/2007 and 24/12/2007 convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 354/363/376(2)(f)/304(II) IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(f) IPC; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Sec. 304(II) IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 IPC. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence punishable under Sec. 354 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits the incident occurred on 5/6/2005 but the victim was taken to hospital after three days i.e. on 8/6/2005 and FIR was lodged on that day. No evidence is forthcoming how the victim was treated between 5/6/2005 and 8/6/2005 although the mother/de-facto complainant (PW6) claimed that she was busy with the medical treatment of her child. Mr. Bhattacharyya also argues there is no direct evidence that the appellant had committed rape. On the other hand, evidence is forthcoming he was inebriated and referring to the opinion of PW15, he argued the appellant who was drunk was incapable of committing sexual intercourse. It is also argued PWs.9 and 11 have not identified the appellant in court and the security guard (PW2) did not support the prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid lacunae in the prosecution case, he submitted the appellant may be entitled to an order of acquittal.

(3.) Mr. Parthapratim Das, learned advocate appearing for the State submits mother of the child (PW6) deposed the appellant had snatched away the child from her lap. Thereafter, the child was recovered by PW13 from the appellant who was in an inebriated condition. Child had injuries in her private parts. Doctors who treated the child stated she had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. She ultimately succumbed to her injuries on 10/6/2005. Delay in lodging First Information Report has been duly explained. Prosecution case is proved beyond doubt. Appeal is liable to be dismissed.