The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to scrutinize the quality of evidence and surrounding circumstances in cases of sexual offenses, emphasizing the importance of corroborating the victim's testimony and assessing its credibility.

1. Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.08.2012 and 29.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 5th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. II (October) 2010, the appellant, by preferring this appeal, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment mainly on the grounds that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and settled position of law.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the impugned judgment is quite unimpeachable and it does not warrant any interference.

3. For the sake of convenience and effective adjudication, factual scenario of the case is required to be revisited. The victim was a worker of a weaver’s workshop and with a view to earning more money she had been residing in the house of her employer. The accused appellant is also an employee of the said workshop. Off and on the accused/appellant used to give her indecent proposal but the victim refused. In one night while the complainant/victim was sleeping she felt that somebody was rubbing her breast. The victim protested. The accused then showed a knife and under a threat committed rape upon her forcibly. Thereafter the accused used to commit rape upon her off and on. When she allegedly became pregnant due to such sexual intercourse, she disclosed it to her employer first and thereafter she had disclosed it to her parents and others. Airing out her such grievances, she had lodged a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and set the law into motion.

4. The defence case as it appears to me from the trend of cross-examination and examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is his innocence and that he has been falsely implicated. However, after the registration of F.I.R., the Investigating Officer took the charge of investigation. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined available witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., sent the victim to the learned Magistrate for recording her evidence under Section 164 Cr.P.C., collected medical report of the accused appellant, and of the victim and thereafter submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 of I.P.C.

5. Pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, learned Trial Court framed the charge under the aforesaid section. Charge was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and as a result the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial.

6. It is perhaps needless to say that the witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are to be scrutinized very carefully to see if the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and disputes.

7. P.W. 1, a resident of Kanchkuli Village, i.e. where the alleged incident occurred, did not support the prosecution case and as a result he was declared hostile. P.W. 2, followed P.W. 1 in the same fashion and so he was declared hostile. P.W. 3 has proved an endorsement in the written complaint which is marked Exhibits 1 and 2. P.W. 4 produced the Admission register of the school. She was asked to be present before the learned trial Court so that the age of the victim could be ascertained. The Admission Register, which she produced speaks that the victim’s date of birth is 06.06.1997. She failed to say how the date of birth was entered in the Admission Register. As per the F.I.R. alleged incident of rape was committed on 28.07.2008. If it is so then at the time of alleged incident she was just 11 years and one month. On a close scrutiny, it appears to me that the date of alleged incident has been wrongly put in the F.I.R. Because if the alleged incident took place on 28.07.2008, how the F.I.R. could be lodged on 15.02.2008 i.e. five months before the alleged incident. Therefore, it seems to me that the alleged incident certainly took place on 28.07.2008 and the formal F.I.R. gives an indication to