The importance of corroborating evidence in cases of rape and the need for the prosecution to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J: The appellant Chittaranjan Das was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. This charge was framed against him on three counts. It was alleged that between 18th November, 1958, and 21st November, 1958, at 29-A and B. Kailash Bose Street, Calcutta, he committed rape on Sandhyarani Das Gupta alias Nirmala. The second count was that he committed the same offence at the same place and in respect of the same girl between 1st December, 1958 and 6th December, 1958; and 15th December, 1958, at the same place and the third count related, to the commission of the said offence between 9th December, 1958 and in respect of the same girl. Along with the appellant, Ganesh De was charged with having abetted the appellant in the commission of the said offence, the charge framed against Ganesh De being under Section 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, held the commitment proceedings, and was satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution before him made out a prima facie case against both the accused persons. Since the offence in question was triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate committed them to the Sessions on the 4th May, 1960.

2. The case of the appellant and his co-accused was then tried by the City Sessions Court at Calcutta with the aid of jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellant in respect of all the three counts. A similar verdict was brought by the jury in respect of the co-accused Ganesh De. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the verdict of the jury was not perverse, and so, he decided to accept the said verdict and accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 376 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years on the first charge. No separate sentence was awarded in respect of the other charges. Ganesh De was also sentenced to a similar period of imprisonment. This order was passed on the 9th July, 1960.

3. The appellant challenged the correctness of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge by preferring an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. A Division Bench of the said High Court did not feel impressed by the points made on appellant s behalf, and so, his appeal was summarily dismissed on the 22nd July, 1960. The appellant then applied for a certificate under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution. This application was allowed by Lahiri, C. J., and Bose, J., on the ground that some of the points which the appellant wanted to raise before this Court by his appeal were substantial points of law, and so, they granted him a certificate under the said Article. It is with this certificate that the appellant has come to this Court.

4. Before dealing with the points which fall to be considered in the present appeal, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant. Sandhyarani Das Gupta was a minor girl who was staying with her mother Soudamini in the Refugee Colony at Ghola. It appears that one Maniprova alias Manibala Majumdar induced this young girl to go her house at Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipur some time in the first week of November, 1958. Manibala induced Sandhya to go to her place with a promise that she would secure a nurse s job for her. The appellant was the Zonal officer of the Refugee Rehabilitation Office at Tollygunge at that time and, according to the prosecution, the co-accused Ganesh De was a Peon in the said office. The prosecution alleged that in course of time, Sandhya was taken to the appellant in his house in about the middle of November, 1958 on the representation that the appellant wanted to give her employment. When Sandhya met the appellant, the appellant held out the hope of a lob for her and he managed to ravish her. Similarly Sandhya was taken to the house of the appellant on two or t