STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. SIDDHESWAR MANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Sri S. Ray, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Contai dated 31.07.1992 in Sessions Trial Case No. XV/January/1992 acquitting the respondent from the charges punishable under Sections 417/376 I.P.C. Prosecution case, as levelled, against the respondent is to the effect that one Menoka Maity, PW3 is the daughter of Amulya Maity (PW1), the de-facto complainant herein. The respondent was a neighbour of Amulya Maity and resided at a distance of 2/3 bighas away from his house. He was on visiting terms with the victim and they developed a love affair amongst themselves. On 14th Aswin, 1396 B.S. at about 9/10 a.m. the respondent came to the residence of the victim while her parents and brother were away. She was working in the cowshed. The respondent entered the cowshed, held her by her hand, made her to lie down on her back, gagged her mouth with a napkin and ravished her. As she started to cry, the respondent assured that he would marry her. On 19th Kartick, 1396 B.S., the respondent took her to the Sitala Temple and married her there by exchanging garlands. Thereafter, they cohabited a number of times and as a result she became pregnant. On 20th Jaistha, 1397 B.S. she told her mother that she had become pregnant. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant and his son went to the house of the respondent to arrange for the marriage between the victim and the respondent. However, on 12th Ashar, 1397 B.S. the respondent refused to marry her. Thereafter, on the written complaint of Amulya Maity (PW1), before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., 1973 Contai PS No. 137/1990 dated 05.11.1989 under Sections 470/493/376/109 I.P.C. was registered for investigation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 417/376/493/109 I.P.C. against the respondent and his parents. Charge, however, was framed against the respondent alone. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to the trial. In course of trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the respondent was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by judgment and order dated 31.07.1992 acquitted the respondent of all the charges.

(2.) Mr. Dutta, learned Government advocate submitted that the victim was a minor and on the false promise of marriage, the respondent had cohabited with her. She also became pregnant due to such act. Evidence of PW3 is corroborated by other cogent evidence and there, the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside.

(3.) We have considered the evidence on record. PW3 is the victim in the instant case. She deposed that the respondent was on visiting terms with her. They had developed a love affair amongst themselves. On 14th Aswin, 1396 B.S., around 9/10 a.m. the respondent had come to the house while she was working in the cowshed and the members of her family were away. The respondent made her to lie down on her back and forcibly gagged her mouth with a napkin and ravished her. When she started crying the respondent promised to marry her. On 19th Kartick, 1396 B.S. the respondent took her to Sitala Temple and married by exchange of garlands. Thereafter, they cohabited 10/15 times in the cowshed. As a result, she became pregnant. On 20th Jaistha, 1397 B.S. she informed her mother about her pregnancy. Thereafter, her father and brother went to the house of the respondent. On 12th Ashar, 1397 B.S. the respondent refused to marry. Her father lodged a case. She was interrogated by the police. She made a statement before the magistrate. She was medically examined and her ossification test was done. She gave birth to a female child. In cross-examination, she stated that the cowshed has two openings. One on the north and the other on the south. To the west adjacent to the cowshed, there is a public pathway. Even after the respondent had taken out the napkin from her mouth, she did not cry as he had assured her of marriage. PW1, Amulya Maity is the father of the victim and PW4, Lichubala is her mother. PW1 is also the de-facto complainant in the instant case. They corroborated the evidence of PW3. PW2 is the registered clerk of the learned advocate who drafted the petition of complaint before the learned magistrate. He proved the documents exhibit (1/1). PW5, PW6 and PW7 are the neighbours who deposed that PW1 reported to them about the aforesaid incident of rape by the respondent. They deposed that the respondent did not marry the victim inspite of promise to do so. PW8 was the medical officer who examined the victim girl on 29.06.1990. He found her that she was pregnant for 34 weeks. PW9 Dr. H. P. Halder conducted ossification test of the victim on 14.07.1990 and opined that she was close to 19 years on the date of examination. PW10, Dr. B. K. Nanda examined the respondent and stated that he was sexually potent. PW11 Dr. Bimal Chandra Roy also held radiological examination of the victim girl on 13.11.1990 and opined that she was between 18 and 19 of age on the date of examination. He proved his report as exhibit 4. PW12, Dr. T. N. Panigrahi examined the victim 13.07.1990 and stated that she was habituated with sexual intercourse and was 32 weeks pregnant. There was, however, no mark of injury on her person. PW13 received the written complaint from the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Contai and drew up the formal F.IR. being exhibit 1/3. PW14 is the investigating officer of the case who submitted the charge-sheet.