The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the consistency and reliability of the victim's testimony, the absence of prevarication, and the corroboration of evidence to establish the commission of the offence.

JUDGMENT

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. - The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.07.2018 and 19.07.2018 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Serampore, Hooghly in sessions Trial No. 15 of 2015 arising out of sessions case no. 38 of 2015 convicting the appellant under Section 376 (2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more.

2. The prosecution case emanated from a complaint dated 13.10.2014 wherein the complainant Ranjana Sadhukhan being the mother of the victim stated that she had been a widow residing permanently in the village of Rajbalhat of Rajbalhat-2 Gram Panchayat under Jangipara P.S., Hooghly. On 11th of October, 2014 she accompanied her younger daughter for private tuition at about 3 pm leaving her 19 years old physically challenged elder daughter at home. On her exit from the house the victim was taken to Kali Charan Samsan by Premanath Dutta, a neighbour in the locality enticing her with an ice-cream who thereafter raped her. At about 4 p.m., on her return the complainant noticed signs on her elder daughter been subjected to rape. Being perplexed, the helpless complainant went to the local doctor namely Partha Pratim Jana on 12.10.2014 who requested her to seek legal recourse. The complainant prayed for taking legal steps against the miscreant.

3. Based on the written complaint Jangipara P.S case No. 233 of 2014 dated 13.10.2014 under Section 376 (2)(1) IPC was instituted. A formal FIR was registered against the convict Premanath @ Premnath.

4. The investigation originated and terminated with the submission of chargesheet under Section 376 (2)(1)(j) IPC. Chargesheet was submitted on 30.11.2014. Subsequently, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 376 (2)(1)(j) IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution cited 8 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents, in order to establish its case.

Learned Advocate Mr. Arindam Jana for the appellant at the outset stated that the evidence of PW1 reflected inconsistency regarding the time of her absence from her house contrary to the evidence of PW 3. PW 1 in her evidence stated that she went out at 3 pm and returned at 4 pm. She witnessed the clothes and pants of the victim stained with blood which however, were not seized. PW 3 Sikha Addya in her evidence stated that PW 1 was present at her house from 3:30 to 5 pm like any other day when the younger daughter of PW1 attended her tuition. He further argued that the scribe namely Subhash Dutta who had written the complaint was not examined. He further stressed upon the fact not a single member was cited as a witness who had accompanied PW 1 to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. Moreover, it was surprising that PW 1 was oblivious of the names of the members who accompanied her to the Police Station. It was further strenuously argued that considering the gravity of the offence, PW 1 belatedly lodged the complaint and went to the doctor after two days of the incident for examination. It was further stressed PW 2 the victim stated that she was in Mansatala along with her friend and the said friend was not examined. Moreover, the appellant had taken PW2 to a jungle where there was snake and the said jungle was not denoted in the map. He further stated that the evidence of PW 2 is not trustworthy owing to her physical and mental retardedness.

6. She would not have been able to comprehend the term 'Sabhadhipati' and the version of her evidence was tutored. The wearing apparels of the victim were not seized for FSL report. The incident of physical molestation of PW 2 was reported for the first time to PW 4 by PW 1 on whose advice the written complaint was lodged and the victim was subjected to medical examination. There were inconsistencies in the opinion of the Doctors who had examined the vic