MOHIBUR MOLLA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas, in Sessions Trial No.3(12)06 arising out of Session Case no.21(3)06 convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months more.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 21.1.2006 around 7.30 p.m. the victim girl aged about 12 years had gone to the grocery shop to purchase some grocery articles. When she was returning home the appellant caught her, pushed a handkerchief in her mouth and forcibly dragged her into the cow-shed of Abdul Hai Molla and raped her. The victim thereafter disclosed the incident to her parents. The matter was informed to the local Gram Panchayat who tried to settle the matter but in vain. Thereafter the appellant threatened the victim and on 24.1.2006 written complaint was lodged by one Sahajamal Molla (P.W. 1) at the local police station. On the basis of such complaint Diamond Harbour P.S. Case no.14 of 2006 dated 24.1.2006 under Section 376 I.P.C was registered. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and transferred to the court of the Additional Session Judge for trial and disposal. Charge for the aforesaid offence was framed against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial the Trial Judge by judgement and order dated 29.11.2008 convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f) I.P.C. and sentenced him, as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that evidence of the prosecutrix, P.W.5, who is the victim aged about 12 years, is not corroborated by the medical evidence. It is submitted that no injuries were found on the victim which belies the conclusion of forcible rape. It is also submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix suffers from inherent improbabilities and the evidence of other witnesses are also unreliable. There was delay in lodging the FIR which renders the prosecution case vulnerable.