The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, along with strong suspicion of concoction and afterthought due to delay in lodging the complaint, can undermine the sustainability of a conviction.

JUDGMENT

Sugato Majumdar, J. - Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26/03/2015 and order of sentence dated 27/03/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in S.T. No. 05 (04) 2014 whereby the Appellant of CRA 226 of 2015, Mangal Das Adhikari (hereinafter mentioned as 'Appellant no. 2') was convicted under sections 363/365/366 of the Indian Penal Code and the Appellant of CRA 210 of 2015 namely Rita Jana (hereinafter mentioned as 'Appellant no. 1') was convicted under section 363/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant no. 2 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, a further simple imprisonment of one and half years for commission of offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant no. 2 was also sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, a simple imprisonment of one year, for offences under section 363/365 of the Indian Penal Code. The Appellant no. 1 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four years with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, a simple imprisonment of one year, for commission of offences under section 363/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Genesis of the case was the written complaint dated 24/06/2011 of the victim girl. It was stated in the written complaint that on 15/05/2011, at about 01:00 P.M., the Appellant no. 1 called her near Hari Mandir of the locality. When the victim went there, she found the Appellant no. 2 was present with a motor cycle. She was forcibly seated by the Appellant no.1 on the motorcycle on the pretext of visiting a local fair. In spite of hue and cry of the victim and resistances made, the Appellant no. 2 took her to an unknown destination where she was kept inside a room. She was given food but was put on threat by the Appellant no. 2 that her parents would be killed had she been disobedient. Three or four days thereafter, with help of other persons, the Appellant no. 2 put vermilion on her forehead and compelled her to wear conch bangles. Some photographs were also taken. The Appellant no. 2 also took away her golden ear rings. The parents and other relatives of the family of the victim traced out her in the residence of the Appellant no. 2. Initiatives were taken by the local people of the village of the Appellant no. 2, organized a 'salishi' after which she returned home with her father. Her father also put his signature on a blank paper. It was also stated in the written complaint that the Appellant no. 2 with five to seven persons had been loitering about the residence of the victim frequently in motor cycles and had been threatening her and abusing using filthy language. They had also been threatening the other family members.

3. The written complaint was received on 25/06/2011 at 13:35 hours in Tamluk Police Station and was registered as Tamluk Police Station Case No. 311 of 2011 dated 25/06/2011 under sections 363/365/366/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Formal F.I.R was drawn up and investigation of the case was initiated. In course of investigation, the Investigation Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map with index, examined the witnesses, got the statement of the victim girl recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the magistrate, seized the admit card of the victim from her mother, which was subsequently returned to the father of the victim on execution of zimmanama and all other incidental things. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against both the Appellants under sections 363/365/366/354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Before the Trial Court charges were framed against the Appellant no. 1 under sections 363/365/366/120B of the Indian Penal Code whereas charges against the Appellant no. 2 were framed under sections 363/365/366/354/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over and explained to