LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-10

MD. RASHID @ BARIWALA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On April 02, 2013
Md. Rashid @ Bariwala Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 27-11-2009 /30- 11-2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1 of September,2008 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 50 of 2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta thereby convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month more. There was a direction that the amount of fine if realised shall be equally utilised for the welfare of the victims by the organisation in whose custody the victim girls reside.

(2.) Filtering out unnecessary details the prosecution case as unfolded in course of trial is that CINI ASHA, an organisation having it's office at 63 Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta works for deprived urban children and provides night shelter to them at their office address. Both the victim girls were provided night shelter by them.

(3.) They are sisters by relation. During counselling session one of the victim girls disclosed that they were sexually abused by a person known as 'Bariwala' who used to pay them money for chocolate, chips and cadbury after such act. One of the victims had shown the house where they were abused to the FIR maker, Sarita Agarwal, a senior programme associate of CINI ASHA. On receipt of the FIR a case was registered. It was investigated into. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant Md. Rashid @Bariwala for the commission of offence under Section 376 IPC The case was committed to the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and the same was subsequently transferred to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta for disposal. The charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the appellant and the same was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.