The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for corroboration in cases of sexual assault, the reliance on the victim's testimony, and the evaluation of evidence in the context of the entire case.

JUDGMENT

Shivakant Prasad, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction dated March 23, 2015 and order of sentence dated March 24, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First Court at Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur, in Sessions Trial No. 5 (8) 13 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case, which is an outcome of personal grudge and rivalry between the family members of the appellant and the victim lady over a landed property.

3. Prosecution case leading to the present appeal is that on complaint of the prosecutrix, a first information report being no. 89 dated October 3, 2011 under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in the Binpur Police Station for investigation. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 376/506 of Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge after taking cognizance under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure transferred the case to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, First Court at Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur, for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 376/506 of Indian Penal Code and the same was read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as eight (8) witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant.

5. On completion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but no evidence was adduced on his behalf. He deposed that he had been falsely implicated in the instant case due to family disputes over landed property.

6. In conclusion of trial, the trial court by the impugned judgement and order convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

7. The prosecutrix deposed that commission of rape was made on her forcibly by holding out threat by the appellant, when she was alone in her paternal house.

8. Prosecution witnesses no. 1 and 2 are the parents of the prosecutrix. The prosecution witness no. 1 deposed that the appellant is the son of her elder brother in law, that is to say, the nephew of prosecution witness no. 2. Thus, he happens to be the cousin brother of the victim lady/prosecutrix. She deposed that when the prosecutrix was alone in the house, the appellant had entered into their house and committed rape on the prosecutrix by holding out threat with dire consequences. This evidence of prosecution witness no. 1 is undoubtedly hearsay evidence, since in cross-examination, she stated that Prasanta Chowdhury, who happens to be the husband of the victim lady, intimated her about the incident. The victim lady also deposed that subsequently she narrated the incident to her parent immediately upon their returning home and she also informed about the incident to her husband. Thus, hearsay evidence of prosecution witness no. 1 does not find corroboration as to who had really communicated her about the incident. The prosecution witness no. 2 being the father of the victim lady deposed that he had heard about the incident of rape from the villagers and that he was not interrogated by the investigating agency. Therefore, no amount of his testimony can be relied in evidence.

9. Be that as it may, the evidence of prosecution witnesses no. 1 and 2, being the parent of the victim lady, are hearsay evidence which cannot be relied to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant.

10. Prosecution witness no. 3, namely, Mousumi Sarkar, is the wife of the appellant. She deposed that she had no