Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 881 (CAL)

Lenin @ Lelin SK v. State Of West Bengal

2018-12-04

JOYMALYA BAGCHI, RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. The Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Lalbagh, Murshidabad in S. Sl. Case No.126 of 2011 arising out of Sessions Trial No.10/Sept/11 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is to the effect that on 16.7.2009 at about 5.00 p.m. when the victim went out for defecation behind her house, the appellant caught hold of her and committed rape on her. As a result, she suffered bleeding injuries on her private parts. She narrated the incident to her mother and was treated at Raninagar B.P.H.C. Subsequently she was admitted at Berhampore Matrisadan Hospital for further treatment. On the written complaint of the uncle of the victim (P.W.1), first information report being Raninagar Police Station Case No.378 of 2009 dated 17.7.2009 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 376 (2)(f)/212/109 against the appellant and other co-accused, namely, Selim Sk., Dalim Sk. and Sahina Khatun. Charges were framed under Sections 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and under section 212 against Selim Sk. and Dalim Sk. and under sections 109/341 of the Indian Penal Code against Sahina Khatun. The appellant and other co-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant and other co-accused persons was one of innocence and false implication. 5. In conclusion of trial, the Trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. By the selfsame judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons of the charges levelled against them. 6. Mr. Samanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant was illegal and ought to be set aside. 7. By the selfsame judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused persons of the charges levelled against them. 6. Mr. Samanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant was illegal and ought to be set aside. 7. I have examined the evidence on record, particularly that of the victim girl (P.W.4) who deposed that while she had gone to the field to pluck jute leaves, the appellant had accosted her and subjected her to rape. She narrated the incident to her mother and was treated at Raninagar BPHC. Thereafter she was taken to Berhampore Matrisadan Hospital where she was admitted for 15 days. Her version is corroborated by her parents (P.Ws.3 and 5) as well as her uncle (P.W.2) who is the defacto-complainant in the instant case. Evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 shows that the victim was admitted at Berhampore General Hospital with per vaginal bleeding and history of physical assault. On 17.7.2009 her vaginal injury was repaired. Discharge certificate and other medical papers of the victim were exhibited. 8. From the aforesaid evidence on record, I have no doubt that the appellant had violated the victim causing injuries on her private parts. Evidence of the victim is corroborated not only by oral evidence but also medical evidence, e.g. P.Ws.11 and 12. 9. In view of the aforesaid materials on record, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. 10. The appeal is dismissed. 11. Period of detention suffered by appellant during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once. 13. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.- I agree.