The presumption of innocence, the need for a fair trial, and the requirement for the prosecution to prove all elements of the alleged offences were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant appeal the accused persons have challenged the order of conviction and sentence under Sections 376/511 and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.17 of 1985 arising out of Sessions Case No.101 of 1984 handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia.

2. The appellant No.1 was directed to suffer imprisonment for 7 years for committing offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No.2 was directed to suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year for committing offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC in short.

3. Purilia Town Police Station Case NO.6 dated 12th May, 1984 was registered under Sections 376/448/342/506 of the IPC against the accused persons on the basis of a written complaint submitted by one Chitaranjan Dutta. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that his daughter, aged about 8 years at the relevant point of time went to fetch water from Manbhom Sports Association (M.S.A.) on 12th May, 1984 at about 9:30/10:00 a.m. At that time accused Pralay Dasgupta @ Chhotku called her and took her inside the office room of MSA. Then he closed the door and windows of the said room, made the minor daughter of the de facto complainant to lie down on the table forcibly put off her pant and attempted to commit rape upon her. When the daughter of the de facto complainant cried out of fear, the accused fled her off. At the time of her departure, the accused threatened her saying not to disclose the incident to anybody. The daughter of the de facto complainant returned to her house weeping. The de facto complainant came to know about the incident from her daughter and asked the accused that he would take steps by lodging a complaint against him with the police. At that time accused Proloy and his friend Kanak Pramanick threatened the de facto complainant saying that if he tried to lodge a complaint with the police against them, they would drive them away from the locality.

4. On completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against accused Pralay Dasgupta under Sections 376/511 of the IPC. Both the accused persons were also charged under Section 342 of the IPC. On their pleading not guilty, trial of the case commenced.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant at the outset submits that the learned Trial Judge failed to frame charge in compliance with the requirement of Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to substantiate his contention, he refers to the charge framed against the accused persons. It is submitted by him that in the charge the learned Trial Judge failed to state the time and place of occurrence of the offence allegedly committed by the accused persons. In support of his contention, the learned advocate for the appellants refers to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jamsed Shaikh & Ors. Vs. State reported in (1986) C CLR (Cal) 166. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2010) SC 130. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants that the relating to Sections 212, 215 and 464 of the Code are as follows”-

(i) the object of framing charge is to enable an accused to have a clear ideas of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to made. The charge must contain the particulars of dates, time, place and person against whom the offence was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.

(ii) The accused is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy, the exact nature of the charge against him and unless he has such knowledge, his defense will be prejudiced. Where an accused is charged with having committed an offence against one person but on the evidence led, he is convicted for committing offence against another person, without a charge being framed in