PRATAP DIGAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sec. - I Backdrop:

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that on 23/3/2022 one Moumita Naskar lodged an FIR before the concerned Women Police Station at Serampore stating that the victim was her sister who was residing with her father at Bombay but as she was tortured by her step mother, her father had brought the victim girl from there and with the help of a person kept her with the accused, a professor of Serampore College, for her education. The father of the victim left the victim girl with the accused about two weeks before 23/3/2022. But after 4 to 5 days, the accused established sexual relation with the victim on several occasions and further he administered medicine to her sister. The accused used to threaten her sister not to disclose anything about such a relationship. The victim girl tried to flee away from there, but she could not succeed. Subsequently, she informed her elder sister i.e. the de-facto complainant, over phone who rescued the victim girl on 23/3/2022 at about 12 noon. The appellant committed rape upon the victim girl, after administering contraceptive medicines to her and kept victim girl in confinement. Moreover, she was also intimidated by the appellant who committed the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the victim. The prosecution adduced as many as seven witnesses and the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused under Ss. 376(2)(f)/506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 20 years etc.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Lord Chatterjee has submitted that the prosecution case suffers from pervasive contradiction, serious investigative lapses and inherent improbabilities that rendered the conviction unsustainable. Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that there are inconsistencies in the dates of alleged last intercourse. In this regard he has referred to the statement of the victim girl recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. and her medico legal examination where she had stated before the concerned doctor a different date as to her last intercourse. There are no specific dates when the alleged intercourse took place between the victim and the appellant. The PW 2, the elder sister of the victim had also failed to specify dates as to when such alleged intercourse took place. PW 2 did not specify when the victim girl was left or sent to the alleged custody of the appellant. No evidence has been adduced to establish that the father of VG ever transferred her custody to the appellant. The prosecution did not examine the father as a witness at any stage of the trial. The victim's testimony was full of embellishments and omissions.