SUDHANGSHU PRAMANICK Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour in Sessions Trial No. 5(4) 2001 on 02.04.2002.

(2.) The miniaturized version of the prosecution is that the de facto- complainant's sister Jayasree Mondal used to visit the house of their neighbours accused Khokan Maity and Sandhya Maity where accused Sudhangshu Pramanick used to frequent. On 11.09.1997 corresponding to 25th Bhadra, 1404 B.S. at about 1.30 p.m. with the active assistance of the said Khokan and Sandhya, accused Sudhangshu Pramanick committed rape on her said sister on a false assurance of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy followed by abortion by the accused persons through a local doctor. Salish was held over the incident on different dates, and in such a meeting on 28.07.1998 though the accused persons admitted the guilt of accused Sudhangshu of causing pregnancy of Jayasree followed by abortion, accused Sudhangshu refused to marry her. Hence, accused Sudhangshu was charged under Section 376 I.P.C., while other two accused persons were charged under Section 376/109 I.P.C.

(3.) The defence case as suggested to P.W. 10 and as contended by the accused persons during their examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is a complete denial of the alleged offence and that they have been falsely implicated in this case out of animosity.