PUMA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us has been convicted under section 448/457/376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was arraigned for trial on the charge of rape allegedly committed upon the PW 2. viz., Dilkumari and also for committing lurking house trespass. The prosecution story is summarised hereunder: The victim girl, viz., Dilkumari is the wife of one Narad Muni, a Constable under the State Police Service. At the material time the husband of the victim girl and the accused were occupying two rooms side by side partitioned by a TChatai (bamboo splints). On 16th December. 1980 at about 9- 30 p.m. when the above girl had fallen asleep after her husband went for his night duty at the Treasury Building at Balurghat in the District of West Dinajpur, she was alone in the room. The door of the room was closed and bolted from the inside. She had petticoat and panty beneath it and a brassiere on her breast on her wearing at that night. Inside the room a kerosene lamp was burning. Around 9-30 p.m. the appellant stealthily entered into the room where the victim was sleeping by making his way through the eastern portion of the above partitioned ChataiT by cutting open the same by a bati (sharp metal instrument for dressing vegetables). In this process the accused is alleged to have tress-passed in the room and he put off the burning lamp. Thereafter the appellant finding the victim asleep prostrated upon her put off the petticoat and pulled off the panty from one leg and thus he made it convenient to commit rape the victim girl. It is alleged the appellant then started sexual intercourse for about 6 or 7 minutes ended with discharge of semen inside the vaginal canal. Immediately after having finished of this sexual intercourse, the appellant started molesting her breast by removing the brassiere vigorously. At that time the appellant was smelling alcohol. The story of the prosecution is that she thought her husband had come back from duty and he was having inter-sourse with her. She was passing her menstrual period during that time and that was the first day of the period. She also asked the accused, presuming him to be her husband, where did he drank at that night. It is alleged that the appellant imitating the voice of her husband, whispered that his colleagues had forced him to take alcoholic drinks. During this period she had no doubt in her mind that her husband was treating in that manner. It is her story further that her assumption was proved to be incorrect when he rekindled the lamp with a match stick. In the light of the kerosene lamp she could recognise that the appellant was not her husband and the appellant having realized that he had been recognized by the victim girl, unbolted opened the door of the room and fled away. Then and thereafter the victim girl started crying aloud and drew attention of all the neighbours viz., PW7 China Sanki who came and thronged there. The PW-7 was only Nepali Knowing woman who could understand the reasons for the victim girlTs crying and what had exactly happened to her, as he knew only Nepali language. Even the entire story was narrated by the victim, one Dilip who happened to be another colleague of the husband of the victim traced the appellant and brought him back arrested to his own room and there he was kept confined. When the appellant was being brought at the place of occurrence he alleged to have made extra- judicial confession saying, TIJ have done blunder, please spare me and forgive me, don't raise any hue and cry. On complaint being lodged by the victim girl along with her husband on the very same night, the Investigating Officer came and made various seizures and seized all the articles including the said Bati, Petticoat and Panty. She was medically examined by PW-4, viz., Dr. Kalyan Kumar Nag. Report was obtained from him. The accused was taken to custody by Investigating Officer. It is said that the accused was also medically examined but the report of such medical examination was not produced nor the same was forthcoming.

(2.) Accordingly, the charges were framed by the learned trial Judge under the aforesaid section. It is needless to mention that the accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The Prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined, as many as twelve witnesses. Upon analysis of the evidence both oral and material, as well as, documentary the learned trial Judge came to findings that the appellant is guilty of committing rape and also committing lurking house trespass. So he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years on the charges of rape and one year on the charges of lurking house trespass. Over and above the aforesaid imprisonment he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under section 376 of the IPC. in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. Similarly, he was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10/- under charges of section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two days.