The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence, credibility of witness testimony, and giving the accused the benefit of doubt when two views are found from the evidence on record.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - The appellant faced trial on the charge under Sections 448, 376/511 and 325 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC in short and on completion of trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge Uluberia, found him guilty for committing offence under Sections 354, 448 and 323 of the IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine and default clause for committing offence under Section 354 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine and default clause for the offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine and default clause for committing offence under Section 323 of the IPC in Sessions Trial No.116(U) of 2014 on 5th July, 2016.

2. The order of conviction and sentence is assailed in the instant appeal.

3. On 28th August, 2013 the defacto complainant lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Shyampur Police Station stating, inter alia, that her husband used to work at the relevant point of time in Kolkata. She used to reside alone in her house at village Gadiara. On 24th August, 2013 at about 2 am at night, accused Sujit Bhowmik @ Vikey broke open the door of her room and tried to commit rape upon her. The defacto complainant raised alarm which prevented him from committing rape upon her. But the accused snatched away one earring made of gold from her ear. Hearing her hue and cry, her elder brother-in-law and local people rushed to the place of occurrence. Seeing them the accused fled away from the room of the defacto complainant in naked condition leaving his 'lungi and shoes'. On the following day she was medically treated at Kamalpur Hospital. It is also stated by the defacto complainant that due to her medical treatment, there was delay in lodging complaint against the accused.

4. On the basis of the said complaint police registered Shyampur P.S Case No.351 of 2013 dated 28th August, 2013 under Sections 448, 376/511, 379 and 325 of the IPC against the accused and took up the case for investigation. On completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Since the offence under Section 376/511 of the IPC is tribal by the Court of Session the case was commit to the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Uluberia.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant has criticized the impugned judgment in course of her argument submitting, inter alia, that the alleged incident took place on 24th August, 2013 at about 2 am. From the evidence of the defacto complainant (PW1) it is ascertained that on the very date of occurrence, she went to Shyampur P.S at about 4 am. The Police Officer first advised her to have medical treatment and then lodge complaint in the P.S. On the same day she was medically treated at about 11 am at Kamalpur Hospital. But the written complaint was lodged on 28th August, 2013, i.e., after the lapse of about four days. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant there is unexplained, inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and as a result of such unexplained delay, false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.

6. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that according to the defacto complainant, she raised hue and cry when the accused tried to commit rape upon her and hearing her cry, the elder brother of her husband and other local villagers rushed to her room and saw the accused assaulting the defacto complainant. Seeing them the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Except Gour Dolui (PW2) no other villager came forward to corroborate the evidence of PW1. PW5 is the husband of the defacto complainant. He was not present in the house on the date of occurrence. Therefore, he has no direct knowledge about the incident and his entire evidence is in the nature of hearsay.

7. It is also urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the defacto complainant made an allegation that the accu