The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the victim's testimony with great weight, the need for corroboration in sexual offence cases, and the distinction between preparation and attempt in the commission of an offence.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The appeal is against the judgment and order dated 13.01.2006/16.01.2006 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum in Sessions Trial No. 2/05 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 448/376/511/324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months for committing the offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code; 4 (four) years for committing the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and 6 (six) months for committing the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code; Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C. and to Rs. 300/- for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the said above offence. All the above sentence were to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is that on 12.07.2005 at about 4.15 a.m., when the complainant namely Bebi Sarkar was sleeping with her two sons in the Verandah of their house, the appellant after entering the house, forcibly made attempt to commit rape upon her. She somehow resisted him. The appellant attacked her with a knife and she sustained injury on her both hands. She raised alarm and rushed to the Kali Temple, where her husband was present and reported the incident. Her husband called the villagers at the Kali Temple and reported the incident to them.

3. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 448/376/511/324 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. In course of trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The defence taken was of innocence and false implication.

5. On conclusion of trial the Ld. Judge by the judgment and order under appeal was pleased to convict and sentence the appellant as stated above.

6. Appellant/defence case Mr. Somnath Banerjee, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the conviction and sentence is not proper in view of the evidence on record that the prosecution could not prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case (PW 7) failed to collect the wearing apparels of the victim and also did not recover the knife (offending weapon) by which the appellant allegedly caused bleeding injury on the hands of the victim. Investigating Officer failed to prepare the sketch map of the place of occurrence and as such the evidence of the prosecution cannot be relied upon. It is further stated that the victim did not state anything before the medical officer (PW 8). Neither the name of the assailant nor the history of assault. That the examination of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was not in accordance with law and that total judgment and order finding the appellant guilty and convicting and sentencing the appellant as follows was without proper appreciation of evidence and inspite of the prosecution case not being proved beyond all reasonable doubt. And this has caused serious miscarriage of justice to the appellant and as such the appeal is liable to be allowed and judgment and order under appeal should be set aside.

7. Prosecution case Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwal, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the state submits that the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and on considering both the oral and documentary evidence as produced before the Trial Court rightly came to the findings of guilt of the accused/appellant and accordingly rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and as the said judgment and order under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity and being in accordance with law, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Evidence on record Pros