The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence, including timely filing of FIR and supporting medical and circumstantial evidence, in cases of alleged rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The accused suffered conviction and sentence for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2016 corresponding Trial No. 21(9) of 2016 by the learned additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur.

The learned Trial Judge handed down sentence of imprisonment for seven years with fine and default clause against the accused. In the present appeal, judgment and order of conviction and sentence is under challenge at the instance of the accused.

One Nurban Bibi lodged a written complaint before the Inspector-In-Charge, Karandighi, Police Station on 16th august, 2008 alleging, inter alia, that the accused had love relation with the minor daughter of the defacto complainant. Subsequently he committed rape upon the victim on the promise of marriage. as a result of such physical relationship the minor daughter of the defacto complainant became pregnant. When pregnancy of the daughter came to the knowledge of the defacto complainant she asked her about the incident. The daughter of the defacto complainant narrated the incident to her mother. She and her husband enquired the accused about the incident but he denied any such happening altogether. The defacto complainant informed the matter to parents of the accused but they did not take any step, on the contrary they sent the accused to some other place. The defacto complainant also made complaint against the accused to local political leaders. They advised the father of the accused to give marriage of the daughter of the defacto complainant with the accused but he refused to accept such proposal. On 14th august, 2008 the victim girl found the accused near her house. She demanded to marry her. The accused agreed to marry the victim provided. On 15th august, 2008 a village Salish was held over the matter. In the said Salish it was decided that the defacto complainant would have to pay Rs. 25,000/- in cash to accused abdul Barik but the accused refused to marry the daughter of the defacto complainant.

The trial of the case was conducted by the learned additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court at Islampur. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and fine with default clause.

It is pertinent to mention at the outset that during the pendency of the case in the trial court, the victim girl was given marriage with another person and she is now peacefully enjoying her marital life with her husband. During trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses amongst them, the victim girl was examined as PW-2. PW-1 is her mother and the defacto complainant of this case. PW-3 is the brother of the prosecutrix and PW-4, the present father -in-law of the prosecutrix. PW-6 and 7 are the Investigating Officers and PW-9 is the Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix.

During investigation the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The written complaint, statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the formal FIR, the Medical report, the school leaving certificate of the victim girl were marked exhibits during trial of the case.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that even if the case of the defacto complainant is believed and it is held that the accused had physical relationship with the victim, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to substantiate his argument it is stated by the learned advocate for the appellant that according to the prosecution case the victim girl had love-affairs with the prosecutrix. While she was in relation with the accused, it is alleged that the accused once had physical relationship with the victim on promise of marriage. Subsequently he refused to marry her.

Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Bijayon Vs State of Kerala reported in 2008, 14 SCC, 763,