Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 611
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Indrajit Chatterjee, J.
Sk. Sobur - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondents
C.R.A. No. 293 of 2014
Decided On : 06-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Mr. Souma Subhra Ray
For the State : Mr. Imran Ali
In a rape case, the testimony of the victim is of paramount importance and must be carefully scrutinized. If the victim's testimony is found to be credible and reliable, it can be sufficient to convict the accused, even in the absence of other corroborating evidence.
Headnote:
RAPE - AGE OF CONSENT - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - DELAY IN FIR - LOVE AFFAIR - SECTION 376 IPC - [1] The victim being a minor, the accused cannot escape from the analogy that whoever touches a minor touches fire. [2] The court cannot infer disbelieving the claim of the victim or her parents that the victim was not pregnant at the time of lodging of the FIR which is corroborated duly by the doctor’s evidence and also the report of the doctor.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a 13-year-old girl, was allegedly raped by the accused, resulting in her pregnancy. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that the victim had falsely implicated him. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, including the victim, her parents, and a doctor who confirmed the victim's pregnancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's testimony was credible and reliable, and that it was corroborated by the medical evidence. The court also found that the accused's defense was not convincing and that there was no evidence to support his claim that the victim had falsely implicated him.
Issues: 1. Whether the victim's testimony was credible and reliable. 2. Whether the medical evidence corroborated the victim's testimony. 3. Whether the accused's defense was convincing. 4. Whether there was evidence to support the accused's claim that the victim had falsely implicated him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the victim's testimony was credible and reliable, as it was consistent with the medical evidence and there was no reason to disbelieve her. 2. The court held that the medical evidence corroborated the victim's testimony, as it confirmed that she was pregnant and that the pregnancy was consistent with the time of the alleged rape. 3. The court held that the accused's defense was not convincing, as it was based on mere denial and there was no evidence to support his claim that the victim had falsely implicated him. 4. The court held that there was no evidence to support the accused's claim that the victim had falsely implicated him, as the victim's testimony was consistent with the medical evidence and there was no reason to disbelieve her.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the accused's appeal and upheld the trial court's conviction and sentence.
Indrajit Chatterjee, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the convict-appellant from jail assailing the judgment and order of conviction as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Birbhum at Suri, in Sessions Case No.184 of 2011 (Sessions Trial No. 1/January, 2012) which arose from Dubrajpur P.S. Case No.116 of 2011 dated 26-09-2011 (G.R. Case No.205 of 2011).
2. The learned Trial Court on perusal and considering the oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution found the accused guilty in respect of the charge punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as the said Code). However, the convict was acquitted in respect of the charge punishable under Section 417 of the said Code. The learned Trial Court while passing the sentence clamped rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months in respect of the offence as I have already stated. The convict was allowed to get set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The fact as I get from the First Information Report lodged by the father is the that the victim girl (name withheld) was aged about 13 years when the FIR was lodged. The FIR further disclosed that the said girl was engaged in love relation with the present accused-convict and as such, they had free intercourse and it was further alleged in the FIR that false promise of marriage was given by this accused-convict to that girl while so mixing freely. Thus, the victim became pregnant and, thereafter, her father went to the house of this accused and gave marriage proposal to the guardians of the present convict. Sk. Majnu, i.e. the father of the present convict did not agree to the marriage and this accused also denied to accept the fatherhood of the baby and ultimately, this de facto complainant was driven out from that house.
4. Unfortunately, in the FIR, no date has been fixed regarding the second incident of refusal of the marriage proposal and manhandling. There is also no date on which the free mixing started or on which date she became pregnant or whether the baby was allowed to be born.
5. On receipt of the said FIR, this case was started about which I have already stated in the initial paragraph of this judgment.
6. Investigation was taken up by S.I. Mojammel Mondal (P.W-12). The accused was arrested on 27-09-2011 and he was duly forwarded to court. The accused was medically examined and so also the victim. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which was marked as Ext. 4 before the learned Trial Court. The medical report of the victim was marked as Ext. 2 and the medical test report of the accused-convict was marked as Ext.3.
7. The Investigating Officer examined witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against this accused-convict on 31-10-2011 vide charge sheet No. 116 of 2011 of that police station under Sections 376/417 of the Code.
8. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, it was transferred to the present Trial Court. Charge was framed accordingly under Sections 376/417 of the Code to which this accused pleaded not guilty and the trial started.
9. On behalf of the prosecution as many as 13 witnesses were examined. The prosecution relied upon several documentary evidence which has been duly noted by the learned Trial Court in internal page no.3 of the judgment. I do not like to repeat the same.
10. Accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incident. He did not prefer to adduce either oral or documentary evidence. The case of the defence before the floor of the Trial Court was a story of entire denial of the episode. I have stated the result of the sessions trial.
11. On behalf of the convict, Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae and at the time
