SELIM SK. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 19.04.2012 and 20.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F. T. Court No. 3, Lalbagh, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 08' July/2008 arising out of Sessions Serial No. 173/2007 thereby convicting the appellant, Selim Sk. under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ -, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six more months.

(2.) ON 17.01.2006, Tumpa Khatun, aged about 15 years, had been to a 'Jalsa' at Idgah Maidan, Habaspur. The appellant, Selim, one of the neighbourers, called her and told her that he had same matters to be spoken to her. He took her away to a dark place and suddenly put her clothing inside her mouth, laid her down on the ground forcibly, disrobed her and raped her. He also threatened her with dire consequence in case of disclosure of the incident. He brandished a knife and threatened to kill her also. Tumpa returned back home but did not disclose the fact for about two days. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her mother and her mother disclosed the incident to her father. The father of Tumpa taken up the matter with the local people but nothing fruitful yielded. Since there was an effort of settlement, delay was caused in lodging the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on 01.08.2006 by Asadul Hoque, the father of Tumpa Khatun, which was registered as Bhagwangola Case No. 7/2006 dated 01.02.2006 against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated into. The victim was medically examined in course of investigation. Her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The investigating officer, on conclusion of the investigation, filed a charge -sheet against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant faced the trial as he pleaded not guilty. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of evidence on record found that the prosecution brought home the charge leveled against the appellant and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that there was inordinate delay in filing of the F.I.R. which has not been explained. He also stated that the medical examination report of the victim has not supported the prosecution case. The oral testimony of the prosecutrix has not also been supported by corroborative evidence of other witnesses. The local people, like P.W. ­ 3, 4 and 5 were declared hostile. Time of incident mentioned in the F.I.R., 164 statement of the victim and as stated by the victim in Court are different. No injury was detected on the body of the victim although she claimed that she sustained some injuries while resisting the appellant. Mr. Chatterjee contended that all these discrepancies and shortfalls in the prosecution case together create a doubt as to the genuinity of the prosecution case. Accordingly, the Judgment appealed against is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have gone through the entire evidence on record, oral and documentary. It is true that there was considerable delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The F.I.R. which has been marked exhibit ­ 2 itself contains the explanation for such delay in filing of the same. A careful reading of the evidence of the P.W. ­ 1, the victim, the P.W. -2, a local man, the P.W. -6, a local man, the P.W. ­ 8, father of the victim makes it abundantly clear that immediately after disclosure of the fact by the victim to her mother who, in turn, disclosed the fact to the P.W. - 8, father of the victim, there was an effort on the side of the family of the victim to settle the dispute by way of taking up the matter in a village meeting. The village meeting actually had taken place but ultimately failed. Thereafter, the family of the prosecutrix decided to report the incident to the police station by way of lodging the F.I.R. So, I find that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has properly and satisfactorily explained by the prosecution and that cannot be a reason for disbelieving the case of the prosecution.