IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, JJ.
Bablu Sarkar - Appellant
Vs.
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 2013, 280 of 2014
Decided on : 20-11-2018
The victim, a minor girl, was allegedly subjected to gang rape. The court found the prosecution's evidence, including the victim's testimony and medical evidence, to be convincing and upheld the conviction of the appellants. The court balanced the gravity of the offence and the young age of the offenders in modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000 each.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a minor girl, was allegedly subjected to gang rape. The appellants were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000 each.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence, including the victim's testimony and medical evidence, to be convincing and upheld the conviction of the appellants. The court modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000 each.
Issues: Alleged gang rape of a minor girl, credibility of victim's testimony, and appropriate sentencing for the offenders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the gravity of the offence and the young age of the offenders in modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000 each.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants was upheld, and the sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000 each.
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
1. The appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in Sessions Case No.204 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Trial No.74 of 2012 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more.
2. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 9.3.2012 around 11.00 a.m. the victim aged about 17 years had gone out to bring back a cow which had been tethered for grazing. When she went to the spot, she could not find the cow. She proceeded further and upon coming near a canal she found the cow. While she was untying the rope of the cattle, the appellants, namely, Bablu Sarkar and Liton @ Ajabul Sarkar caught hold of her. They removed her wearing apparels and laid her in the ditch and Liton committed rape on her while Bablu hold her hands. She suffered bleeding injuries and upon returning home reported the incident to her mother. Subsequently when her father returned home, he was apprised of the incident and he lodged written complaint with the police station resulting in registration of Tapan P.S. Case No. 79 of 2012 dated 9.3.2012 under Sections 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants.
3. In the course of investigation, the victim was medically treated and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal.
4. Charge was framed against the appellants under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeals.
5. Nobody appears for the appellants.
6. Ms. Amita Gaur is requested to appear as amicus curiae and assist this court. Ms. Gaur argued that the evidence of the victim (P.W.2) is most artificial and does not inspire confidence. The incident allegedly happened in a ditch adjoining a village, however, nobody witnessed such incident. Allegation of forcible rape is patently absurd. It is argued that the appellants particularly Liton @ Ajabul Sarkar was falsely implicated as there was an amorous relationship between him and the victim which was not liked by her parents. She also submitted that the injuries on victim are not indication of gang rape and the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.
7. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 is natural and convincing. Her version is not only supported by her parents but also by the medical evidence of P.W.3 who found injuries on her back and blood was oozing out from her private parts. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. P.W.2 is the victim and the most vital witness in the instant case. She deposed on 9.3.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. she had gone out to bring back the cow which had been tethered on the bank of Bangkuri pond. She could not find the cow and started searching along the bank of the canal. Ultimately she found that the cow was tied to a wild tree on the bed of the canal. The canal was totally dry. She went down to the bed of the canal to untie the rope. At that time, the appellants, Liton and Bablu caught hold of her. Liton gagged her mouth and Bablu stuffed her mouth with an orna and both of them dragged her into the bed of the canal where Liton committed rape on her while Bablu held her hands. When Bablu was about to rape her she wrested herself out of the clutches of Liton a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.