RAJESH SK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated March 7, 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Session Trial No.2/March/2011 arising out of Sessions Case No.24 of 2011 whereby the appellant Rajesh Sk. and two others have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of which to suffer further imprisonment for six months each.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that on January 8, 2009 at about 9.30/10.00 PM, the appellant Rajesh Sk., who was known to the defacto complainant Sundari Khatun, set out with her and her uncle's daughter Rehana Khatun for his house at Bagsirapara. On the way, the appellant took them to an abandoned room at Aurangabad Balika Vidyalaya where four friends of the appellant came. It is further alleged that the appellant embraced Sundari Khatun forcibly and pressed her breast. He also tried to pull her trouser but she managed to escape by biting his finger. Two of the companions of the appellant named Hanif Sk and Abdul Sk sexually assaulted Rehana Khatun while the appellant and two others aided in the commission of such offence. When Sundari Khatun raised cries, the accused persons fled away. While fleeing, the accused persons took away the gold necklace, silver 'tora' and gold earrings of Rehana.

(3.) On the basis of the written complaint of Sundari Khatun, Suti Police Station Case No.4 of 2009 dated 9th January 2009 under sections 376(2)(g) and 379 IPC was initiated against the appellant and four others. Investigation into the case culminated in the submission of the charge-sheet under sections 376(2)(g) and 379 IPC against all the accused persons including the appellant. The learned trial Judge framed charge under section 376(2)(g) and 379 IPC against the appellant and two other accused persons who pleaded not guilty to the indictment and claimed to be tried. During the trial, prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and exhibited several documents.