The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on corroborative evidence, including medical examination reports and witness testimony, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Sahidullah Munshi, J. - This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2010 and 01.04.2010 respectively passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. XI/January/2009, convicting the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code. By the order of sentence learned trial Judge directed both the convicts to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Following the written complaint filed by a hapless father on 12.03.2008 complaining of a commission of a heinous offence on his daughter aged 13 years. Ghatal Police registered an FIR which ultimately gave rise to the Sessions Trial case No. XI/January/2009. It was complained that on 13.02.2008 at about 20.00 hours complainant PW1's daughter was ravished by both the two accused persons which, ultimately, culminated into the charge under Section 376(2)(g) of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C. and the substance of the offence being read over and explained to them they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as nineteen witnesses and at the end of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called 'the Code'). Defence taking the plea of innocence did not lead any independent witness. However, record reveals that summons was issued to a police witness for examination by the defence which they, ultimately, declined.

3. Before the appeal was taken up for hearing it was brought to our notice that both the convicts had been released from correctional home on 06.04.2018 after having obtained benefit of UT set off period. The accused persons have since served out sentence, learned advocate for the appellant prayed for dismissal of the appeal. However, law does not permit so and we heard the appeal on merit.

4. Admittedly, PW1/complainant father of the victim girl filed the written complaint on 12.03.2008 complaining of the occurrence of the offence on 13.02.2008, almost after a month. The complaint was filed and FIR was registered. The defence counsel argued that the accused persons were framed in the criminal case having regard to their previous enmity belonging to two rival political parties. It was sought to be argued that the complainant could not satisfactorily explain away delay of one month in lodging the written complaint. It was sought to be argued that although in the written complaint it was mentioned that both the accused persons committed rape one after the other but it has been pointed out that there is no sufficient evidence attributable to the commission of offence by the appellants and no evidence is forthcoming as to how the victim could identify these two appellants in the darkness of the night. Defence pointed out that medical examination report does not at all support the commission of the offence, far less to say that the same, at all, had been occasioned at the instance of the two appellants before this Court. According to the defence neither was there any direct evidence nor was there any circumstantial evidence from which it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been pointed out by the defence counsel that there are serious lacuna in the investigation commenced and conducted by the Investigating Officer and his evidence before the Court is too poor to rely on for pronouncing conviction against the appellants. It has been further pointed out that the age of the victim girl shown to be minor, has not been proved by any cogent evidence. It has been argued that headmaster who was examined in the box, is not a competent witness to prove the date of birth of the victim girl. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that the trial Court relied on evidence