EJABUL HOQUE @ SK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2013 and 07.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 01/August/2011 arising out of Sessions Sl. Case No. 123 of 2011 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Fine amount if paid be handed over to the victim.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is to the effect that on 10.09.2010 Ajahar Sheikh, P.W.1 found that his daughter was pregnant. Upon query, his daughter informed that the appellant had raped her forcibly on his return from the mosque and as a result she became pregnant. In the night of 10.09.2010 at around 10.30 P.M., co-accused persons entered the residence of the petitioner and tried to kidnap her daughter. P.W.1 lodged written complaint resulting in registration of Suit P.S. Case No.567 of 2010 dated 13.9.2010 under Sections 376/363/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 363/376/365 of the Indian Penal Code. The case being a sessions triable one was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad for trial and disposal. Charges were framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02013 and 07.02013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) At the time of considering the issue of suspending the sentence of the appellant, rule of enhancement of sentence was issued against the appellant.