PARTHA DAS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 28/11/2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Cooch Behar in connection with Sessions Case No.72 of 2017 (Sessions Trial No.2(11) of 2017) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Ss. 376/448/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code; to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 448 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight months for the offence punishable under Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences to run concurrently. 80% fine amount, if realised, be paid to the victim. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is as follows:-

(2.) On 26/9/2016 at 1.00 PM victim was alone in the house. Taking advantage of the situation, appellant forcibly entered the room. When victim tried to raise hue and cry, he pressed her mouth, forcibly took off her wearing apparels and raped her. After her parents returned, victim narrated the incident to them, her grandmother and other neighbours. On the next day, she lodged written complaint at Cooch Behar Sadar Women Police Station resulting in registration of Women Police Station Case No.207 of 2016 dtd. 27/9/2016 under Ss. 448/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges under Ss. 448/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. Upon assessment of evidence, trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

(3.) Mr. Chowdhury for the appellant contends evidence of the victim (PW 1) suffers from inherent improbabilities and contradictions. Victim claimed she was sleeping alone in the house. It is unclear how the appellant entered the room. During chief victim claimed she could not raise hue and cry but during cross-examination she stated she had raised hue and cry. Wearing apparels of the victim were not torn. Semen stained wearing apparels were not seized. Though she claimed she suffered injuries in her private part, medical report does not corroborate this fact. Litigation was pending between the father of the victim and grandfather of the appellant. As a result, he was falsely implicated. Hence, he prays for acquittal.