A victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC is more reliable than her subsequent deposition, which may contain embellishments and contradictions.

Prasenjit Mandal, J:

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 12, 2005 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Second Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial Case No.1 of 2005 thereby convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 of the I.P.C.

The fact of the case in short is that one Ashoke Kumar Singha Mahapatra lodged an ejahar with the O.C., Chinsurah P.S. on December 1, 2003 to the effect that his minor daughter, namely Purnima Singha Mahapatra aged about 16 years went to the house of her private tutor on November 7, 2003 at 6.35 a.m. But, since then, his daughter did not return home. For that reason, he lodged a missing diary with the said police station on November 10, 2003. Later, on enquiry, he learnt from the elder brother of the appellant, Niranjan Talukdar, that appellant Amal Talukdar took his daughter to Bangladesh and kept her confined in the house of his father. Police investigated the case as usual and upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 363/366/376 of the I.P.C.

On the basis of materials on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 363/366/366A/376 against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked certain documents as exhibit. The appellant did not adduce any D.W. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 of the I.P.C. and awarded different punishments for the offences. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order impugned, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Mr. Sanyal assailed the judgment of conviction by submitting that the victim lady, P.W. 11, did not tell the true statement at the time of her deposition and so her statement ought to have been discarded totally by the learned Trial Judge. He also contended that the victim being about 16 years of age on the date of occurrence as per school certificate and also being a consenting party, there is no ingredient of rape. He also contended that the evidence of the P.Ws. suffers from gross contradiction and embellishments and so conviction could not be on such evidence. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the State supported the conviction stating, inter alia, that the charge had been duly proved by evidence on record. Now the point to be considered is if the learned Trial Judge is justified in passing judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

Having considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I find that the de-facto complainant, i.e., the father of the victim lodged an ejahar with the Chinsurah P.S. on December 1, 2003 stating, inter alia, that on November 7, 2003 early morning his daughter Purnima Singha Mahapatra went out for private tuition. But, she did not return from the house of her private tutor and then he lodged one G.D. entry on December 10, 2003. On enquiry, he came to know that appellant/Amal Talukdar took his daughter to Bangladesh. He also stated in the ejahar (exhibit P.-2) that his daughter was born on August 9, 1987 and thus, she was 16 years and three months of age on that day. Thus, on scrutiny of his ejahar, I find that he had no direct knowledge about the allegation against the appellant on December 1, 2003. As per evidence on record, the victim, Purnima Singha Mahapatra, returned to her father’s house in August, 2004, i.e., after 9 months from the date of occurrence. Thereafter, within three or four days police interrogated her and the victim gave statement to the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, victim Purnima is the best witness to say about the allegation against the appellant. On perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C (marked exhibit 9), I find tha