This appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 19.04.2012 and 20.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F. T. Court No. 3, Lalbagh, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 08’ July/2008 arising out of Sessions Serial No. 173/2007 thereby convicting the appellant, Selim Sk. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six more months.

On 17.01.2006, Tumpa Khatun, aged about 15 years, had been to a ‘Jalsa’ at Idgah Maidan, Habaspur. The appellant, Selim, one of the neighbourers, called her and told her that he had same matters to be spoken to her. He took her away to a dark place and suddenly put her clothing inside her mouth, laid her down on the ground forcibly, disrobed her and raped her. He also threatened her with dire consequence in case of disclosure of the incident. He brandished a knife and threatened to kill her also. Tumpa returned back home but did not disclose the fact for about two days. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her mother and her mother disclosed the incident to her father. The father of Tumpa taken up the matter with the local people but nothing fruitful yielded. Since there was an effort of settlement, delay was caused in lodging the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on 01.08.2006 by Asadul Hoque, the father of Tumpa Khatun, which was registered as Bhagwangola Case No. 7/2006 dated 01.02.2006 against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated into. The victim was medically examined in course of investigation. Her statement under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. The investigating officer, on conclusion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant faced the trial as he pleaded not guilty. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of evidence on record found that the prosecution brought home the charge leveled against the appellant and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that there was inordinate delay in filing of the F.I.R. which has not been explained. He also stated that the medical examination report of the victim has not supported the prosecution case. The oral testimony of the prosecutrix has not also been supported by corroborative evidence of other witnesses. The local people, like P.W. – 3, 4 and 5 were declared hostile. Time of incident mentioned in the F.I.R., 164 statement of the victim and as stated by the victim in Court are different. No injury was detected on the body of the victim although she claimed that she sustained some injuries while resisting the appellant. Mr. Chatterjee contended that all these discrepancies and shortfalls in the prosecution case together create a doubt as to the genuinity of the prosecution case. Accordingly, the Judgment appealed against is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Binoy Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State of West Bengal contended that this is a full proof case where the prosecutrix has given vivid description of the incident supported by her statement recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that there was no enmity between the family of the victim and the appellant and his family. There was no reason for a minor girl to implicate the appellant falsely in such a case at the cost of her chastity. He contended that medical examination was conducted long after the date of incident and as such, there was no possibility of getting any sign of rape or injury on the private part or body of the victim. He contended that the learned Trial Court considered the evidence in proper manner and came to a right conclusion which is not required to be interfered with in this appea