Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 71
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBI PROSAD DEY, J.
Parimal Mallick @ Prasanta Mallick @ Pore - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 655 of 2016
Decided On : 17-01-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Kamalesh Chandra Saha, Ms. Payal Mitra, Mr. Md. Nauroj Rahber
For the Respondent: Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Saryati Datta
The prosecution must establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence may lead to the benefit of doubt favoring the accused.
Headnote:
First Information Report - Delay in Lodging FIR - Indian Penal Code - Section 376 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code based on an allegation of rape. The delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and inconsistencies in the victim's statements raised doubts about the authenticity of the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code beyond a reasonable doubt. The entire case was shrouded with suspicion, and the appellant was acquitted due to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: Delay in lodging FIR, inconsistencies in victim's statements, authenticity of the case, benefit of doubt
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR and inconsistencies in the victim's statements raised doubts about the authenticity of the case, leading to the appellant being acquitted due to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The appellant was found 'not guilty' under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted from the charge. The judgment and order of conviction were set aside, and the appellant was released from custody.
DEBI PROSAD DEY, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.09.2016 and 15.09.2016 delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in sessions trial no. 05(7) of 2013 arising out of sessions case no. 09(5) of 2013 whereby and where under learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months.
2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment this appeal has been preferred to this Court on the ground that the prosecution could not explain properly in respect of delay in lodging the First Information Report and that the prosecution also could not produce any reliable witness to establish the charge against the appellant and that learned trial Judge has erroneously come to a conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the alleged occurrence took place as per the statement of the victim at about 8/9 a.m on 9th July, 2012 and that too, such occurrence took place on an open field. The First Information Report was lodged on 17th July, 2012 without any explanation to that effect and the Doctor did not find any injury on the person of the victim though allegedly she was ravished on an open field. It is further submitted that out of political enmity the appellant has been wrongly roped in such a false case and learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true spirit and thereby came to an erroneous finding.
3. Learned Advocate for the State however has supported the conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial Court. It is submitted that the delay in lodging the First Information Report has been properly explained by the defacto complainant and that the victim has categorically stated against the appellant during her examination in the trial Court and learned trial Judge was absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly.
4. It would not be out of place to mention in brief about the facts of the case as well as evidence on record in order to appreciate the case of the parties to this proceeding.
5. On 17th July, 2012 one Pijush Kanti Biswas aged about 51 years lodged a written complaint at Habra police station stating inter alia that on 9th of July, 2012 at about 1 p.m when his wife had been to the field for cutting grass, at that time a boy of their village named after Parimol Mallick alias Pore took his wife forcibly inside the jute field and raped her. The defacto complainant was not in his house on that date and he returned home on 12th July, 2012 and came to know about such occurrence from his wife. Thereafter, the defacto complainant submitted a written complaint scribed by one Debasis Pal at Habra police station on 17th July, 2012. The defacot complainant has been examined as prosecution witness no. 1. In his cross examination prosecution witness no. 1 has categorically stated that he discussed the matter with all the villagers and he had had no acquaintance with scribe of the First Information Report. It is evident from his cross examination that before going to the police station he had been to the house of the leader of some political party and thereafter he went to the police station. The cross examination of prosecution witness no. 1 further reveals that Debasis Pal scribed the petition of complaint at the dictation of the police officer.
6. It is therefore apparent from the aforesaid discussion that though the prosecution witness no. 1 being husband of the victim, came to know about such occurrence on 12th of July, 2017 but he did not inform the matter to the police till 17.07.2012
