CHAMPAMAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing arises from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 19.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in Sessions Case No. 68/02 (ST. No. VIII/February '03) under Sections 493/417/376, I.P.C., acquitting O.P. No. 2/accused.

(2.) Shortly put, the Prosecution case is that for the last one year the accused used to follow the de facto complainant/petitioner (P.W. 1) intending to have sexual intercourse, but the petitioner did not agree. On 27,7.2001 in the afternoon, when the petitioner went to the riverside for collecting grass for her cattle, the accused forcibly committed rape upon her. When the petitioner threatened to disclose the matter to villagers, the accused took her to the nearest temple of goddess Kali and on putting vermilion on her forehead admitted her as his wife. She believed him to be her husband and the accused thereafter committed sexual intercourse several times, for which she became pregnant. The father of the accused noticed the same, agreed for a social marriage and demanded some dowry. The father of the petitioner gave Rs. 5,001/- to the accused as dowry. But the accused did not agree to marry her, as he was already married with another person. Hence, the accused was charged under Section 493/417/376, I.P.C.

(3.) The defence case, as suggested to P.Ws. and as contended by the accused during his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C., is that the accused had no sexual intercourse with the complainant, nor he ever married her in Kali temple. Complainant's husband Ranjit Singh Paharia is the father of her child. The present case has been filed only to blackmail the accused for the purpose of earning or collecting some money.