HAROSHIT PANDEY @ HARASIT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16/17.9.2014 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in connection with Sessions Trial No. II (July) of 2014 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 5(5) of 2014 (Spl) GR case no. 297 of 2014 arising out of Haringhata P.S case no. 59 of 2014 dated 27.2.2014 convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.

(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 27.2.2014 the appellant committed rape on a five-year old girl and also subjected her to sexual assault. The case arose out of a written complaint lodged by the mother of the victim (P.W 1) alleging that on the aforesaid date around 1 p.m. her daughter had gone for taking bath. At that time she urinated and cried out in pain. Upon query she stated that the appellant pushed his penis into her vagina and as a result she suffered pain. Pursuant to aforesaid written complaint Haringhata P.S case no. 59 of 2014 dated 27.2.2014 under section 376 IPC and section 8 of the POCSO Act 2012 was registered for investigation. Victim was medically examined and her statement was recorded before the magistrate. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant and charge was framed under section 376 IPC and under section 8 of the POCSO Act 2012 against him. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial learned trial judge by judgment and order dated 16/17.9.2014 convicted and sentence the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Version of P.W 4, the victim, is unreliable and is not supported by medical evidence. She further submits that there is enmity between the parties and the chance of false implication cannot be rulled out. She accordingly prayed for acquittal of the appellant.