JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; C.J. This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment dated 27-11-2007 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Case No. Sessions Trial 10 (NT/K) of 2006 whereby he convicted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) read with Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in respect of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 457 of IPC, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) more months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 26-08-1991 at about 8 a.m., an FIR was lodged by the complainant, Sri Aditya Nath (PW-12) to the effect that on the night intervening 25/26-08-1991, at about 2-30/3 a.m. of 26-08-1991 the accused Prabir Debroy, S/o. Lt. Pratap Debroy and Bibhu Bhattacharjee, S/o. Dharani Bhattacharjee of village Noyapara, Dharmanagar came to his house in village Nidebi. They knocked at the door. His wife came to open the door and they asked her to send the informant out. Thereafter, they pushed the door and entered the hut. The informant came in front of Prabir Debroy who held a revolver at the chest of the informant and forbade him to raise an alarm. Then in the kitchen within the room, Bibhu Bhattacharjee raped the wife of the informant (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix). Thereafter, Prabir Debroy raped his wife. Somehow, the informant managed to flee from the room and raised an alarm. The villagers came out and caught hold of Bibhu Bhattacharjee, but Prabir Debroy managed to escape. 2. On the basis of this complaint (Exhibit-P/3), the FIR (Exhibit-P/3/1) was lodged. Thereafter, the police started investigation in the matter. However, no charge-sheet was filed immediately against the accused and the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2006 after lapse of 15 years. We shall be dealing with that aspect of the matter in the later part of the judgment. We now proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. Thereafter, the police started investigation in the matter. However, no charge-sheet was filed immediately against the accused and the charge-sheet was filed in the year 2006 after lapse of 15 years. We shall be dealing with that aspect of the matter in the later part of the judgment. We now proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 3. The accused were charged with trespassing into the house of the informant during night and also charged with offence of gang rape. Before dealing with the other evidence, it would be pertinent to refer to the statement of the prosecutrix which was recorded on 25-05-2006 about 15 years after the occurrence. She, in her testimony, states that about 15/16 years ago, she along with her husband Aditya Nath (PW-12) were sleeping in their hut. At about 2/3 a.m., she woke up hearing the sound of some persons kicking at the door of the house. Her husband asked who the persons were and why they had come. They replied that they were their 'thakurs' (Gods). The prosecutrix and her husband did not open the door and then the accused after breaking open the door entered inside their house and they recognised the accused Prabir Debroy and Bibhu Bhattacharjee with the help of light of a burning kupi batti inside the house. The version of the prosecutrix is that the accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee held a pistol against her husband and then the accused Prabir Debroy forcibly disrobed her and then raped her in that area of the hut which was being used as a kitchen. Thereafter, Prabir Debroy took the pistol and held it against her husband while Bibhu Bhattacharjee raped her. Somehow, her husband managed to escape and raised an alarm. Then the villagers rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee whereas Prabir Debroy managed to run away. 4. The prosecutrix and her husband disclosed these facts to the villagers and on the following day in the morning, police came to the village when the complaint was filed and FIR was recorded. She was then taken to the Fatikroy Hospital and examined there and then sent to the Kailashahar Court and she made a statement before the Magistrate about the entire incident. This witness has been cross-examined and she denied the suggestion that such incident did not take place. She was then taken to the Fatikroy Hospital and examined there and then sent to the Kailashahar Court and she made a statement before the Magistrate about the entire incident. This witness has been cross-examined and she denied the suggestion that such incident did not take place. She denied the allegation that she and her husband were dealing with illicit liquor and due to this reason, many antisocial elements used to visit their residence. She was cross-examined again and stated that she could not say whether one Police Officer came to the place of occurrence at night time. According to her, she saw Police Officers only at 8 a.m. in her house at Nidebi. She could not state whether any other person had given information to the police with regard to this incident. She could not state how the police came to their house. She denied that she had not disclosed the name of the accused to the police officials at the time of interrogation. She also denied the suggestion that she disclosed the names of the accused for the first time to the police in the year 2005. She also denied the suggestion that she could not recognise the accused with the help of a small kerosene lamp (kupi batti). She denied the suggestion that the story of 'kupi batti' was introduced later on. 5. PW-12, Aditya Nath, is the informant and his version is virtually identical to that of his wife. He also states that the persons first kicked and knocked at the door and when they did not open the door, the persons kicked open the door. According to him, the accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee and Prabir Debroy entered into his house and he recognised them with the help of the 'kupi batti'. The accused Prabir Debroy took his wife inside the kitchen while Bibhu Bhattacharjee held a revolver on his chest so that he could not raise an alarm. After Prabir Debroy raped his wife, he came out of the area of the kitchen and held the pistol against his chest and then Bibhu Bhattacharjee went to the area of the kitchen and raped his wife. He then managed to run away and raised an alarm. After Prabir Debroy raped his wife, he came out of the area of the kitchen and held the pistol against his chest and then Bibhu Bhattacharjee went to the area of the kitchen and raped his wife. He then managed to run away and raised an alarm. Hearing his alarm, some neighbours including Bikash Das (since deceased), Runu Das (since deceased), Benu Das (since deceased), Monmohan Sen and others rushed to his house and managed to apprehend Bibhu Bhattacharjee, but Prabir Debroy managed to flee away. The entire village knew about the occurrence. The following day at about 8 a.m. a Police Official from Fatikroy P.S. came to his house and thereafter, he narrated the entire incident to him and the Police Officer reduced the complaint into writing and thereafter he put his signature on the foot of the complaint. The complaint was marked as Exhibit-P/3. He also states that the accused were well known to him much before the incident and identified them both. He also stated that at the time of recording of the complaint, he had told the Police Officer that first accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee committed rape and thereafter Prabir Debroy committed the rape. He admitted that at the time of making statement to the I.O., he had stated that first Bibhu Bhattacharjee and thereafter Prabir Debroy committed rape on his wife. His explanation is that at the time of lodging of the complaint, he was mentally upset and made this mistake. The witness also states that after two months of the occurrence, he and his wife left village Nidebi with bag and baggage for village Kanchanpur and had settled down in the Kanchanpur Lokenath Baba Seva Ashram. In cross-examination, he states that at the time when the occurrence took place, he was working as a rickshaw puller. The hut in which he was residing in village Nidebi was erected on Government khas land. Prabir Debroy was the elected member of Kumarghat Notified Area Authority. He denied the suggestion that he and his wife used to deal in illicit liquor. According to him, he could not say whether the accused were returning at that time from the house of Jytotirmoy Malakar, the Chairperson of Kumarghat Notified Area Authority. He denied the suggestion that when the accused were returning, the villagers tried to apprehend both the accused with the intention of murdering them. According to him, he could not say whether the accused were returning at that time from the house of Jytotirmoy Malakar, the Chairperson of Kumarghat Notified Area Authority. He denied the suggestion that when the accused were returning, the villagers tried to apprehend both the accused with the intention of murdering them. He denied the fact that Prabir managed to run away and they managed to apprehend Bibhu. He stated that Bibhu was beaten up by the villagers, but denied the fact that he himself assaulted Bibhu. The witness has been confronted with his statement by the complainant in which there is no mention of a burning 'kupi batti'. This witness was also re-cross-examined and stated that after the occurrence, the police reached his house at about 7 a.m. for the first time. He could not say on the basis of what information the police came to his residence in the morning. He further states that after recording of the FIR on the basis of his oral complaint, no police official examined him in the year 1991. He denied the fact that he could not recognise the accused. 6. The statements of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 are not relevant for deciding this case because all of them claimed that they did not know anything about the case. 7. PW-2, Sri Benu Das Bhowmik, is a co-villager and states that he woke up in the middle of the night on hearing a commotion. He along with others rushed to the scene of disturbance in the house of Aditya Nath and on questioning Aditya Nath and the prosecutrix, they told him that two persons Bibhu Bhattacharjee and Prabir Debroy did 'kharap kaj' (illicit act) with the prosecutrix. Bibhu Bhattacharjee was apprehended, but Prabir Debroy was escaped. 8. PW-3, Sri Bipul Das Bhowmik, is also a resident of the same village. He states that about 3-30/4 a.m., Aditya Nath and one Monmohan Sen came to his house and reported that something had occurred in the house of Aditya Nath. Bibhu Bhattacharjee had been apprehended by then and had been tied to a tree. He states that the local villagers told him that Bibhu Bhattacharjee and Prabir Debroy had entered the house of Aditya Nath, but other than that he did not know what had happened. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Bibhu Bhattacharjee had been apprehended by then and had been tied to a tree. He states that the local villagers told him that Bibhu Bhattacharjee and Prabir Debroy had entered the house of Aditya Nath, but other than that he did not know what had happened. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had told the Investigating Officer that he was informed by the complainant Aditya Nath and Monmohan Sen that the accused had forcibly entered the house of Aditya Nath and raped his wife (the prosecutrix). He also admits that after Aditya raised an alarm, the public rushed to the place of occurrence and apprehended Bibhu Bhattacharjee whereas Prabir Debroy managed to escape. Similar is the statement of PW-4, Smt. Suniti Das (Nath). 9. As far as PW-7, Monmohan Sen, is concerned, he is the resident of the same village. According to him, he woke up in the night on hearing cries from the village and rushed towards the house of the complainant, Aditya Nath. There some villagers had apprehended accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee and he had been tied with a rope to a tree. He also learnt that Prabir Debroy had managed to escape. He also stated that he was told that these two persons had unlawfully entered into the house of Aditya Nath, but nothing further was disclosed. 10. PW-8, Ajit Ch. Paul, is the doctor who examined the prosecutrix. He states that he examined the prosecutrix in presence of a staff nurse. The prosecutrix disclosed to him that she was raped by two persons the previous night. He found multiple abrasion marks on both of her breasts, face, vulva and thigh. He states that he submitted his report on 24-06-2005 which contains his signature. According to him, the police sent a requisition for giving the report only on 04-06-2005 and, therefore, he gave the report on 24-06-2005. He stated that generally reports in connection with some important cases are preserved by him in his personal file and after consulting the personal file, he submitted Exhibit-P/2 to the police. In cross-examination, he admitted that generally the records in hospital are maintained making entry of the result of the investigation. He admitted that after examination of the prosecutrix, he did not prepare any formal report though the finding was entered by him in the concerned register of the hospital. In cross-examination, he admitted that generally the records in hospital are maintained making entry of the result of the investigation. He admitted that after examination of the prosecutrix, he did not prepare any formal report though the finding was entered by him in the concerned register of the hospital. He also did not produce the note on the basis of which he had prepared the final report nor did he produce it before the Court. In our view, no reliance can be placed on this report because this report has been prepared after 15 years and the Doctor could not have recollected what had happened 15 years back and no document of the year 1991 was proved on record. Neither the hospital record nor the personal record of the doctor has been produced. 11. PW-9, S.I. Amalendu Dhar, states that he recorded the FIR when he was handed over the written complaint. He states that the complaint is in the handwriting of S.I. P. Das Choudhury which he identified. He also states that on completion of the investigation, S.I. P. Das Choudhury had submitted the charge-sheet, but the original charge-sheet was never found on the record of the Court and thereafter, after collecting a copy of the charge-sheet from the Office of the Circle Inspector (C.I.), the matter was again re-investigated by S.I. Gopesh Ch. Sarkar (PW-14) when the statement of the witnesses were recorded afresh. 12. PW-10, S.I. Kamalendu Bhowmik, states that he was working in Kumarghat P.S. in the year 2005. According to him, as per orders of the S.P., North Tripura, the case was reinvestigated as it was an old pending case. It was reported that charge-sheet had already been submitted, but actually the charge-sheet was not available on the court record. In cross-examination, he states that perhaps on account of shifting of Fatikroy P.S. to Kumarghat P.S., there might be some anomalies in the record. 13. PW-11, Sri P.K. Paul, was then posted as Judicial Magistrate, Kailashahar and he states that he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix on 26-08-1991. The statement is marked Exhibit-P/4. He states that the prosecutrix had put her thumb impression in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix had not made a voluntary statement. 14. PW-14, Sri Gopesh Ch. PW-11, Sri P.K. Paul, was then posted as Judicial Magistrate, Kailashahar and he states that he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix on 26-08-1991. The statement is marked Exhibit-P/4. He states that the prosecutrix had put her thumb impression in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix had not made a voluntary statement. 14. PW-14, Sri Gopesh Ch. Sarkar, is the person who investigated the case for the second time in the year 2005 when he was posted as S.I. in Kumarghat Police Station. The case was marked to him for re-investigation and thereafter, he went to village Nidebi, but came to learn from the villagers that the informant and the prosecutrix had left the village. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of some other villagers and went to Kanchanpur and recorded the statements of the informant and the prosecutrix. In cross-examination, he states that he received the copy of the FIR, forwarding report as well as the statements of the witnesses including the victim recorded in the previous investigation which took place in the year 1991. However, since he was reinvestigating the matter, he recorded the statements of all the witnesses. He also found earlier charge-sheet lying in the case diary, but did not submit a copy of the same along with the charge-sheet filed by him. 15. The accused in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that they are innocent and have been implicated by way of conspiracy in a false manner. 16. The defence led evidence in defence and has examined two witnesses. DW-1, Sri Jyotirmoy Malakar, states that between years 1988 to 1993 he was the Chairman of Kumarghat Notified Area. During this period, accused Prabir Debroy was member of the Notified Area from the Nidebi Ward. Bibhu Bhattacharjee was a friend of Prabir Debroy. He knew both of them for a long time. This witness used to reside at Gakulnagar which is at a distance of 7/8 Kms. from Nidebi and according to him, since there was no road, the inhabitants of Gakulnagar used to go from Kumarghat to Gakulnagar on foot or by rickshaw. About 15/16 years ago, this witness has requested Prabir Debroy to come to his house at Gakulnagar. Accused Prabir Debroy came along with co-accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee and they left his house at about 11 p.m. on foot. About 15/16 years ago, this witness has requested Prabir Debroy to come to his house at Gakulnagar. Accused Prabir Debroy came along with co-accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee and they left his house at about 11 p.m. on foot. Next morning, accused Prabir Debroy met him in the Notified Area, Kumarghat and informed him that on the previous night when he (Prabir Debroy) and Bibhu Bhattacharjee were returning from Gakulnagar and reached near the house of complainant Aditya Nath, the two accused were attacked by Aditya Nath and some other villagers at Nidebi. Prabir Debroy managed to flee away, but Bibhu Bhattacharjee was illegally restrained by the attackers. According to this witness he was informed by Prabir Debroy that Aditya Nath used to sell illicit liquor and Prabir Debroy raised objection and this was the reason why they were attacked. In cross-examination, he states that there were no division of wards during that period, but Prabir Debroy was assigned to look after development of Nidebi Ward. He states that he advised Prabir Debroy to lodge a complaint at the Police Station, but he himself never reported the matter and he does not know whether Prabir Debroy reported the matter to the police. He denied the suggestion that since he and Prabir Debroy belonged to the same political party, he was supporting the accused. 17. DW-2, Bidya Bhusan Sharma, is a resident of Nidebi and claims to know the complainant side as well as the accused. According to him, Aditya Nath used to sell illicit liquor in the locality and, therefore, this witness had requested Prabir Debroy to take action against Aditya. Thereafter, Prabir Debroy conveyed his objection to Aditya Nath not to sell illicit liquor. He also states that in the month of August in the year 1991 or 1992, Prabir Debroy told him that on the previous night, while Prabir Debroy and Bibhu Bhattacharjee were returning from the house of Jyotirmoy Malakar, they were attacked by Aditya and his associates on the road. Prabir managed to flee, but Bibhu Bhattacharjee was detained by this people. In cross-examination, he admits that during his student life and at the time of occurrence, he was a supporter of the same political party to which the accused belonged. 18. This is the entire evidence. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as aforesaid. 19. In cross-examination, he admits that during his student life and at the time of occurrence, he was a supporter of the same political party to which the accused belonged. 18. This is the entire evidence. On the basis of this evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them as aforesaid. 19. We have heard Sri P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the accused, and Sri R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 20. Sri Biswas submits that there are material contradictions in the statement of the two main witnesses, i.e. the complainant Aditya Nath and the prosecutrix and, therefore, their statements cannot be believed. He further submits that the medical evidence cannot be relied upon since the original noting of the Doctor has not been produced and the medical report which is prayed 14/15 years later cannot be read into evidence. He also submits that this is a clear case where the accused were falsely implicated. It is also contended by Sri Biswas that one person had reported the matter at night to the police and that G.D. entry has not been proved and that would be the original FIR. 21. We have given our careful consideration to all the arguments of Sri Biswas and are unable to agree with him. No doubt, there is one contradiction in the statement of Aditya Nath vis-à-vis the complainant. Whereas in the complaint, it was stated that first Bibhu Bhattacharjee raped the prosecutrix and thereafter Prabir Debroy raped the prosecutrix, in Court, it was stated that it was first Prabir Debroy who raped the prosecutrix and thereafter, Bibhu Bhattacharjee raped the prosecutrix. This has been stated by the prosecutrix also. The informant has given an explanation that while lodging the complaint, he was not in a mentally sound position and by mistake had told the I.O. that first Bibhu Bhattacharjee and thereafter Prabir Debroy had committed the rape. 22. One can imagine the mental state of an illiterate rustic villager whose wife has been raped by two political activists of the area who are much more powerful than them. This is a mistake and in no way constitutes a fresh story. The story of rape has been consistently told by the prosecutrix and her husband. 22. One can imagine the mental state of an illiterate rustic villager whose wife has been raped by two political activists of the area who are much more powerful than them. This is a mistake and in no way constitutes a fresh story. The story of rape has been consistently told by the prosecutrix and her husband. The story of rape is also consistent with the fact that within a month or two of the occurrence, the complainant and his wife had to leave Nidebi and settled down in Kanchanpur. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the Magistrate on 26-08-1991 i.e. on the same day when the incident took place. This statement was recorded by PW-11, P.K. Paul. This statement is totally in line with the statement made in Court and in this, it is stated that Prabir Debroy raped the prosecutrix first and thereafter Bibhu Bhattacharjee raped the prosecutrix. This is a contemporaneous evidence on the date of the incident which clearly corroborates the version of the prosecutrix given in Court. 23. It is true that none of the independent witnesses has supported the prosecutrix. However, all of them have stated that they heard a noise from the house of the complainant Aditya Nath and that a commotion had taken place at the house of Aditya Nath and that Bibhu Bhattacharjee had been apprehended by the villagers. PW-2 has also stated that Aditya Nath and his wife (prosecutrix) told him that the accused did kharap kaj, i.e. an illicit act. It would also be important to mention that though the PW-3 turned hostile, when he was cross-examined by the prosecution he stated that he had told the I.O. that Aditya Nath and Monmohan Sen had told him that on the night intervening 25/26-08-1991, Prabir Debroy and Bibhu Bhattacharjee forcibly entered the house of Aditya Nath and committed rape on his wife. He also admits that he told the I.O. that after Aditya raised an alarm, the public rushed to the place of occurrence and apprehended Bibhu Bhattacharjee, whereas Prabir Debroy managed to escape since he was carrying a revolver. 24. Thus, even the witnesses who have turned hostile clearly state that a commotion had taken place in the house of Aditya Nath and thereafter Bibhu Bhattacharjee was apprehended by the villagers and tied with a tree. 24. Thus, even the witnesses who have turned hostile clearly state that a commotion had taken place in the house of Aditya Nath and thereafter Bibhu Bhattacharjee was apprehended by the villagers and tied with a tree. The statement of some of these hostile witnesses that they neither inquired as to what had happened is not believable. When an occurrence of this sort takes place, it is human nature that every person would make an effort to find out why a person has been apprehended and tied to a tree. More than 15 years have elapsed since the occurrence and the complainant and his wife, the prosecutrix, had left village Nidebi and settled in Kanchanpur. It is, therefore, not difficult to fathom why the witnesses turned hostile. We are not relying upon the statement of the hostile witnesses, but in view of the fact that they also clearly state that a commotion had taken place at the house of Aditya Nath and that Bibhu Bhattacharjee was apprehended clearly shows that Bibhu Bhattacharjee had committed some wrong act. In fact, as pointed out above, two of the hostile witnesses have also clearly stated that they were told that the prosecutrix was raped. 25. The next question to be ascertained is what the wrong act is. The complainant and the prosecutrix clearly state that the accused persons had raped the prosecutrix and threatened the complainant. There is no reason to disbelieve their statements. The defence which has been raised is that the complainant and his wife used to deal in illicit liquor and because Prabir Debroy had objected to that, he and his friend Bibhu Bhattacharjee were attacked by Aditya Nath and his associates. The question that needs to be decided is whether such defence version is plausible or not. 26. Here we mention that though a suggestion has been put to the prosecutrix and the complainant, no such suggestion has been put to PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 that the complainant and his wife were indulging in the sale of illicit liquor. This defence has not even been taken by the accused in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is only DW-2 who has stated that the complainant used to sell illicit liquor and, therefore, he and some villagers had approached Prabir Debroy in this behalf. This defence has not even been taken by the accused in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is only DW-2 who has stated that the complainant used to sell illicit liquor and, therefore, he and some villagers had approached Prabir Debroy in this behalf. No documents have been placed on record to support this allegation. No written complaint has been filed and this suggestion was not put to any of the witnesses. The complainant has stated that he was a rickshaw puller and there is no evidence worth the name to even indicate that he was indulging in the sale of illicit liquor. 27. The other part of the defence story is that the accused left the house of DW-1, Jyotirmoy Malakar, and were going towards their residence when they were attacked by the complainant Aditya Nath and his associates. This story is also patently false. Nobody but DW-1 and the accused knew that the accused were coming to the house of Jyotirmoy Malakar. The villagers did not know that they were to return after 11 p.m. At 2-30/3 a.m. everybody would be asleep in their houses and it is impossible to believe that without any prior knowledge, Aditya Nath or his associates would have attacked the accused persons. No person other than Aditya Nath has been named as part of the group of attackers. Prabir Debroy was In-Charge of Nidebi village and being the representative of such area would have known most of the villagers. Other than the complainant, no name of any other alleged attacker has been mentioned. The accused Prabir Debroy was an influential person being a member of the Notified Area Authority. If such an attack had taken place, the first thing he had to be done was to go to the police. Now, the defence taken is that a murderous attack was made on the accused persons. However, no report to the police was ever made by Prabir Debroy or Bibhu Bhattacharjee. Even if the case was lodged against them, no such complaint was made. The complaint was of the year 1991 and the trial took place in the year 2006. There is no explanation why the accused for 15 long years did not report this matter to the police. This clearly shows that the defence raised by the accused is totally false. 28. The complaint was of the year 1991 and the trial took place in the year 2006. There is no explanation why the accused for 15 long years did not report this matter to the police. This clearly shows that the defence raised by the accused is totally false. 28. It is an admitted case of the defence that some occurrence did take place in the village Nidebi in the early hours of 26-08-1991. It is also not disputed that immediately after the occurrence, Bibhu Bhattacharjee was restrained, whereas Prabir Debroy managed to run away. If an attack had taken place on the accused, then Prabir Debroy would have immediately gone to the police station. Once the occurrence of an incident is admitted and it is also apparent that the occurrence is a serious occurrence, the version of the complainant and the prosecutrix stands corroborated by this circumstance also. As noted above, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on the same date which is also another circumstance which corroborates the prosecution version. 29. Much emphasis has been laid by Sri P.K. Biswas on the fact that on 26-08-1991 at about 6-15 a.m., the Duty Officer of Fatikroy P.S. received information from ASI, G.K. Nag over telephone from Fatikroy that while he was returning from Fatikroy to his house at Rajnagar, he noticed a gathering in village Nidebi and learnt that one Bibhu Bhattacharjee was apprehended by public on the allegation that he committed rape upon a woman of that village. The said information was entered in G.D. entry No. 886. Bibhu Bhattacharjee was also beaten by the public. Thereafter, the then Officer-in-Charge P. Das Choudhury went to the village where the statement of the complainant was recorded. He has also clearly stated that in the year 2006, he could not examine Sri G.K. Nag because Sri Nag was dead. Sri P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. Counsel, contends that it is the information given by Sri G.K. Nag which is the report of the incident and should have been recorded as an FIR since it disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. This contention may be right, but this does not help the accused. Sri P.K. Biswas, learned Sr. Counsel, contends that it is the information given by Sri G.K. Nag which is the report of the incident and should have been recorded as an FIR since it disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. This contention may be right, but this does not help the accused. Even if the G.D. entry in question is treated to be the FIR, the statement of the informant can be treated as a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The G.D. entry in question has been exhibited as Exhibit-P/6 which reads as follows:-- Extract of Fatikroy P.S. now Kumarghat P.S. G.D. Entry No. 886 dated 26/08/91. 0615 886 Information & Note. At the marginally noted time ASI G.K. Nag of FTK PS informed over telephone from Fatikroy to the effect that while he was returning from FTK to his house at Rajnagar at that time noticed some gondaal in Nedebi and learnt one Bibhu Bhattacharjee while committing rape upon woman at that time local public detained him and beaten him seriously. Matter is being informed to O/C PS for taking N/A. Sd/- Illegible Duty Officer This G.D. entry only discloses that some gandagol (commotion) was going on in Nidebi village. He has only reported some problem in Nidebi village and that had heard that a rape had been committed upon an unnamed woman and Bibhu Bhattacharjee had been detained. The identity of the woman has not been disclosed and the information is in the nature of hearsay and, therefore, for this reason the Duty Officer may not have recorded the FIR. Be that as it may, the statement of the complainant can be read as the FIR. 30. We are clearly of the view that this G.D. entry in fact corroborates and supports the version of the prosecutrix because it was recorded at 6-15 a.m. in the morning within a few hours of the occurrence. It is the right of every accused to remain silent, but in a case like the present one where accused Bibhu Bhattacharjee was apprehended by the villagers at the odd hour of about 3 a.m., it was his duty to have explained why he was apprehended. In his statement, he has not stated a word as to what happened. The conduct of the accused in not lodging any FIR also clearly shows that they were at fault. In his statement, he has not stated a word as to what happened. The conduct of the accused in not lodging any FIR also clearly shows that they were at fault. It has been urged on behalf of the defence that the story of a 'kupi batti' (oil lantern) being lit for identifying the accused is patently false. Assuming that there was no 'kupi batti' in the hut of the prosecutrix and the complainant, the defence can still not derive any benefit because it is the case of the defence that the accused Prabir Debroy and Bibhu Bhattacharjee were attacked at the spot and that Prabir Debroy managed to run away while Bibhu Bhattacharjee was apprehended. Therefore, they are not denying their presence on the spot. Even otherwise, Prabir Debroy was the representative of the Ward and well-known to the villagers. Even on a dark night, a villager who is well conversant with his political representative would be able to identify him by voice and over a period of one hour during which the rape took place. As far as Bibhu Bhattacharjee is concerned, he was apprehended at the spot and, therefore, there is no problem with his identification also. 31. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the statement of the prosecutrix and her husband must be believed. This statement is corroborated by the statement of one or two independent witnesses of the area, by the G.D. entry (Exhibit-P/6), by the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Magistrate and by the fact that the version of the defence is totally false. Therefore, though we have not relied upon the medical evidence, we have no hesitation in upholding the judgment of conviction and sentence passed upon the accused. 32. Before parting with the case, we cannot ignore one very disturbing feature of this case. The trial took place 15 years after the incident. For 15 long years, the case had been buried somewhere and neither the police nor the Court nor any other authority took any steps to verify why the case was not proceeded. This was not a minor case, but a case of a gang rape on a woman. The FIR was lodged on 26-08-1991 and on the same date, the FIR was placed before Sri P.K. Paul and he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. This was not a minor case, but a case of a gang rape on a woman. The FIR was lodged on 26-08-1991 and on the same date, the FIR was placed before Sri P.K. Paul and he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. Bibhu Bhattacharjee who had been admitted in hospital with serious injuries since he was beaten up by the villagers, was produced in Court on 06-09-1991 and remanded to judicial custody. Accused Prabir Debroy was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 07-09-1991. He was also remanded to judicial custody. The Chief Judicial Magistrate noted in his order dated 01-10-1991 that the offence was very heinous in nature and the accused do not deserve any sympathetic consideration. However, since Bibhu Bhattacharjee was seriously injured in the attack by the villagers he was released on bail on 01-10-1991. Thereafter, on 06-10-1991 an application was moved by accused Prabir Debroy that he be enlarged on bail on the ground that his mother was seriously ill. The bail was granted till 20-10-1991 with the condition that the accused Prabir Debroy will not leave the Notified Area of Kailashahar and report to the Ct.S.I., Kailashahar daily. Bibhu Bhattacharjee was again arrested after his treatment was complete and remanded to judicial custody. Many other bail applications were filed, but these were rejected. On 24-10-1991, the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was modified to the limited extent that instead of reporting to the Ct.S.I. daily, the accused Prabir Debroy would report before the Officer-in-Charge, Fatikroy P.S. everyday. Thereafter, on 26-10-1991, Bibhu Bhattacharjee was also enlarged on bail since the Investigating Agency did not pray for his further custody. He was directed to appear before the O/C, Fatikroy P.S. every Monday, Wednesday and Friday till further order. The order with regard to Prabir Debroy was also modified on 11-11-1991 when it was directed that he should report to the O/C, Fatikroy P.S. once a week. Surprisingly, on 21-12-1991, a prayer was made by the accused that the condition of the bail be relaxed. Without giving any reasons, the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21-12-1991 without even taking into consideration the orders passed by his predecessor relaxed the condition. Thereafter, the matter was not taken up for 14 long years. 33. (i) Is it a mere coincidence that one of the accused was politically well connected? Without giving any reasons, the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21-12-1991 without even taking into consideration the orders passed by his predecessor relaxed the condition. Thereafter, the matter was not taken up for 14 long years. 33. (i) Is it a mere coincidence that one of the accused was politically well connected? (ii) Is it a coincidence that the well reasoned orders passed by the earlier Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kailashahar Sri S.C. Das (now, an Hon'ble Judge of this Court) and the conditions of bail imposed by him were relaxed by his successor on 21-12-1991 and thereafter, the file did not see light of day? 34. This is a very serious matter. Now, it stands proved that a charge-sheet had been prepared by the earlier Investigating Officer. A copy of the charge-sheet is supposed to go to various persons. Even if one charge-sheet is lost, the other copies must be retained. If a charge-sheet is prepared, it must be filed in Court and any document which is filed in Court cannot be returned to the police and not even to the Court Inspector. Once a document is filed in Court, it becomes the property of the Court and the Court is responsible for the safety and preservation of such document. 35. We are shocked that neither the police nor the Court nor the Office of the Public Prosecutor followed up the matter. This case must have shaken up a small town like Kumarghat. We cannot believe that the file could have been given a quiet burial without some extraneous reasons. We, therefore, direct the Director General of Police to ensure that an inquiry is conducted in the matter as to why the charge-sheet was not filed in Court immediately after 21-12-1991 and why the file remained missing for 14 long years. 36. The Registrar General of this Court is also directed to hold a similar inquiry as to why the matter was not taken up in Court after 21-12-1991. 37. We also direct the Director General of Police and the Registrar General of this Court to clearly indicate in their affidavits a method whereby no such incidence of this kind is ever repeated in the future. 38. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the accused is dismissed. 37. We also direct the Director General of Police and the Registrar General of this Court to clearly indicate in their affidavits a method whereby no such incidence of this kind is ever repeated in the future. 38. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the accused is dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Director General of Police and to the Registrar General of this Court who shall file their compliance affidavits within two months from today. For this purpose, list the matter on 03-04-2014.