Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 759
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Moushumi Bhattacharya, JJ.
Tapas Kumar Palmal – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. No. 510 of 2011
Decided On : 15-12-2017
For the Appellant : Moinak Bakshi.
For the Respondents: Neugive Ahmed and Zareen N. Khan.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimonies, the victim's traumatized state, and medical evidence to establish the commission of forcible rape, leading to the conviction of the appellant under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
RAPE - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - The judgment upholds the conviction of the appellant under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the victim's account, witness testimonies, and medical reports, to conclude that the accused had committed forcible rape. The judgment also reduces the appellant's sentence from 10 years to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment, considering the time already served by the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code based on the prosecution's case, which included the victim's account of being forcibly raped by the accused. The victim's family members and independent witnesses corroborated the victim's traumatized state and her account of the incident. The medical reports also supported the victim's claims of physical injuries consistent with forcible intercourse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the victim's testimony, witness accounts, and medical reports, established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed forcible rape. The court upheld the conviction but reduced the appellant's sentence from 10 years to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment, considering the time already served by the appellant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's account, the consistency of witness testimonies, and the interpretation of medical evidence to determine whether the accused had committed forcible rape.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimonies, the victim's traumatized state upon returning home, and the medical reports indicating physical injuries to conclude that the accused had committed forcible rape. The reduction of the appellant's sentence was based on the time already served by the appellant.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and reduced the appellant's sentence from 10 years to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment, with a provision for additional imprisonment in default of paying the fine. The period of detention undergone by the appellant during investigation, enquiry, and trial was set off against his substantive sentence.
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. This appeal is against a Judgment and order of conviction dated 21st July 2011 and 26th July 2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipur, convicting the appellant under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 5th June 2012 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, the application for bail being CRAN No. 2659 of 2011 was rejected and the appeal was directed to be made ready and placed before the appropriate bench for hearing. The appeal is taken up for hearing today.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The First Information Report:
3. The prosecution case against the appellant is of one Sri Ranjit Kumar Palmal, the de-facto complainant, who filed a written complaint before the officer-in-charge (O.C.) of Keshpur P.S. stating, inter-alia, that on 14th January 2010, on the eve of Poush Sankranti, when he was sitting beside a fire with his wife Tapati, his brother Sri Asit Palmal, and Asit Palmal's wife, he suddenly saw Kalyani Rani Palmal, (the victim and wife of his other brother Sri Sujit Palmal), approach them, distraught and trembling, wearing only a petticoat and a torn blouse. She was gagged and her hands tied with the sari which she had been wearing. She collapsed on reaching the place when Ranjit Palmal and the others were sitting. Tapati and Khukumoni, the victim's sisters-in-law, covered her body with the sari after freeing her hands and removing the gag from her mouth. On administering first-aid, the victim regained her consciousness.
4. The victim narrated that she had taken her goats for grazing to Sarisabari when all of a sudden the accused, Tapas Palmal, grabbed her from behind and pushed her to the ground. He thereafter gagged her and tied her hands with the sari which she was wearing and raped her. The rape was committed when the victim had gone to bring back her goats that had gone for grazing. After narrating the incident, the victim lost her consciousness again. She was taken to Keshpur Hospital by some of the witnesses present in Ranjit Palmal's house. The attending doctor at Keshpur Hospital referred her to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital. The police seized the clothes of the victim and prepared a seizure list in the presence of a witness who duly signed the seizure list. The de facto complainant stated that one Tapas Kumar Palmal, a resident of the same village and son of Sri Ajit Palmal had raped the victim after gagging her and forcibly pushing her down on the ground.
5. The original written complaint by the de facto complainant/PW-1 was treated as the FIR dated 14.01.10 under section 154 Cr.PC. The charge against the accused was framed under section 376 and Tapas Kumar Palmal was named as the accused in the FIR.
6. On receipt of the written complaint from Sri Ranjit Kumar Palmal, the O.C. of Keshpur P.S. started Case No. 2/10 dated 14/01/10 under section 376 I.P.C. and entrusted its investigation to sub-inspector (S.I.) Sri Somnath Sanki. A charge sheet was filed against the accused Tapas Kumar Palmal, who was named in the F.I.R. under section 376 I.P.C. 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The prosecution also relied upon several documents which were brought into evidence as Exhibits No. 1 to 10.
The Witnesses:
7. PW-1 is Sri Ranjit Kumar Palmal, the de facto complainant and the brother-in-law of the victim.
8. PW-2 is Smt. Khukumoni Palmal, sister-in-law of the victim. She identified the accused on the dock.
9. PW-3 is Smt. Tapati Mondal, another sister-in-law of the victim. She corroborated the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2.
10. PW-4 is Sri Nisith Palmal, another brother-in-law of the victim. He identified the accused on the dock and deposed that the accused was a resident of the same village. He deposed that at the time the crime was committed he had gone to a Pous Mela, which was being held at a distance of about 10 to 12 km from his house. He deposed that on returning home his wife Kh
