Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Madhumati Mitra, JJ.
Bibhuti Bhusan Roy – Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2013
Decided On : 10-12-2018
Partha Pratim Das, Adv., Amita Gaur, Adv., Abhra Mukherjee, Adv., Dipankar Mahato, Adv.
The judgment establishes the importance of victim testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements in cases of sexual offences against minors, and highlights the need for evidence to support claims of false implication.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Rape - IPC 376(2)(f), 376(2)(f)/511, 506 - POCSO Act 4, 6, 8, 12
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing rape and other offences under IPC and POCSO Act against a minor girl. The prosecution's case was based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements. The defense claimed false implication due to a loan dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements. The court dismissed the defense's claim of false implication due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and witness statements, as well as the defense's claim of false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of evidence, the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and medical evidence to establish guilt. The defense's claim of false implication was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
Final Decision: The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the sentences under IPC and POCSO Act were upheld with a modification to reduce life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000.
Madhumati Mitra, J.
The appeal is presented by the convicted accused/appellant against the judgment dated 17.05.2013 and sentence dated 18.05.2013 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Trial No.02 of 2013, arising out of Sessions Case No. 123 of 2013 convicting the present appellant for committing the offences under Section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(f)/511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and under Sections 4,6,8,12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) for committing the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the I.P.C and seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) for committing the offence under Section 376(2)(f)/511 of I.P.C. and imprisonment for six months for committing the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. The appellant has also been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for committing the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and he has been further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for commission of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He has further been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for committing the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for committing the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the minor daughter of the informant (P.W.No.2) aged about 9/10 years was alone in their house at about 4:00 p.m. on 02.04.2013. The appellant/accused came to their house and committed rape on the minor victim girl of the informant by force. Victim girl did not disclose the incident of rape to anybody as she was threatened to be killed by the appellant/accused. Again on 23.04.2013 at about 5:00 p.m. the victim girl was alone in her house, the appellant came to the house of the informant and attempted to commit rape on the victim girl by force and disrobed her. At that moment informant came back to her residence and found appellant was trying to commit rape on her daughter and seeing the incident the informant raised alarm, then the appellant/accused left the victim girl and fled away. After sometimes, the accused/appellant and his son Bikash Roy came to the house of the informant and threatened them.
3. Pw.No.2(Informant) lodged an F.I.R. with Bamongola, P.S. on 24.04.2013 at about 19:15 hours. On the basis of said F.I.R., Bamongola, P.S.Case No.65 of 2013 dated 24.04.2013 was started against accused/appellant and his son Bikash Roy for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(f)/109 I.P.C and under Section 4,6,8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against appellant/accused and his son.
4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda. Learned Sessions Judge, Malda framed charge against accused/appellant for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(f)/511/506 I.P.C. and under Sections 4, 6, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against accused Bikash Roy for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376/511/109/506 of the I.P.C.
5. Both the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
6. Defence case as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that the informant (P.W.No.2) took a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the appellant/accused and when the appellant/accused demanded the said amount of Rs.5,000/- from the informant then the informa
