GANESH ORANG Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 5/3/2019 and 8/3/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bongaon, North 24-Paraganas and Judge, Special Court, Bongaon, North 24-Paraganas in Special (POCSO) No.95 of 2017 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000.00 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000.00 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act, both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case as levelled against the appellant in the first information report lodged by P.W.1, mother of the victim girl is to the effect that the victim girl was a student of class IX and aged about 14 years. Appellant was her private tutor. Appellant had raped her daughter on a number of times in the house where he gave tuition. On 8/8/2017 at 7.30 P.M. appellant came to her residence and forcibly raped her daughter. He also threatened her daughter with dire consequences. After few days, her daughter started behaving strangely and upon persuasion on 14/9/2017, she disclosed the incident to her. On the self-same day, she lodged a written complaint resulting in registration of Bagdah P. S. Case No.666 dtd. 14/9/2017 against the appellant.

(3.) In the course of investigation statement of the victim girl was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She was medically examined. Appellant was arrested and charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sec. 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 6 of the POCSO Act. To prove the case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.