The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecutrix's testimony to be trustworthy, reliable, and of 'sterling quality' to convict the accused in a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

ORDER :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

The instant appeal is by the accused person who stood trial in Sessions Trial No.2(7) of 2013 arising out of Haldia P.S Case No.3 of 2012. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Charge was framed alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. The court below found that the charge was established on the basis of the evidence adduced by the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence found to be punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On the basis of a written complaint submitted by the prosecutrix to the effect that on 3rd January, 2012 at about 1 pm she went to take bath in a pond situated near Haldia Bandar Station by the side of the pitch road. At that time, the appellant suddenly came to her and embraced her forcefully and dragged her to the jungle by the side of the pond. Then he committed rape upon her inside the jungle and fled away. The defacto complainant returned to her home and informed the incident to local people. On 4th January, 2012 she identified the offender who was roaming near Bandar Station in the afternoon. The local people apprehended him and assaulted him. In the mean time police appeared at the spot. The accused was taken to the police station and subsequently the defacto complainant lodged the complaint on 4th January, 2012. It was further stated by the defacto complainant that as her husband was not in the house on the date of commission of offence, the FIR was lodged on the next date of incident.

4. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant impeached the finding of the court below on appreciation of evidence and resultant findings as to the guilt. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that from the written complaint it is learnt that on 4th January, 2012 the appellant was identified by the defacto complainant and the local people apprehended and assaulted him. In the mean time, police came and took the appellant to the police station. Thus, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the statement made by the unidentified local people who caught hold of the accused is the first information to the police and the subsequent information in writing by the defacto complainant is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the prosecution failed to explain delay in lodging the FIR and therefore the prosecution case becomes suspect. The content of the FIR is also doubtful in view of the fact that though the victim did not know the name of the accused, she stated her name and father's name in the written complaint. Subsequently, however, the defacto complainant could not state the name of the accused before the medical officer at the time of her medico legal examination.

6. The medico legal examination does not support the prosecution case in as much as the Medical Officer did not find any injury in or around the private part of the victim. Moreover, according to the victim, she was dragged inside a jungle situated by the side of the pond by the accused and the offence was committed there. He submits that if the prosecutrix was dragged by the accused forcibly inside the jungle, there would obviously be some injury on the lower parts of her body. However, the medical officer did not find any such injury on the person of the defacto complainant.

7. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence during trial of the case. In the written complaint as well as in course of examination of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she sta