The central legal point established in the judgment is that unexplained delay and discrepancies in the victim's deposition can raise doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case, leading to the benefit of doubt being extended to the accused.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th December, 2012 and 20th December, 2012 passed by the learned additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 6th Court, Malda in connection with Sessions Case No.156 of 2012 (Sessions Trial Case No.38 of 2012) convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently.

Prosecution case, as against the appellant is to the effect that on 28.12.2011 around 9.00 p.m. when the victim came out of her room to answer nature's call, the appellant dragged her to a 'arahar' field and forcibly committed rape on her by showing a hansua. Victim returned home and reported the matter to others. She claimed she lodged written complaint with the local police station on the next day but no steps were taken. She even reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police. Finally, on 21.01.2012 she filed petition before the Magistrate and pursuant to direction of the Magistrate, Manikchak Police Station Case No. 41 of 2012 dated 21.02.2012 under Sections 341/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. In course of investigation, victim was medically examined by P.W. 6 at Malda Hospital. She made statement before Magistrate. appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed. Charges were framed under Sections 376/506/341 of the Indian Penal Code.

In course of trial, prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove the charge. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. During his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant stated that his grandfather had transferred five bighas of land to his father. Out of grudge, the victim falsely implicated him in the case. He, however, did not examine any defence witness. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 19th December, 2012 and 20th December, 2012 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. However, by the selfsame judgment and order, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

Nobody appeared for the appellant. Mr. Sumanta Ganguly, learned advocate is requested to appear as amicus curiae and assist this Court in disposing of the appeal. He submits there is inordinate delay in lodging first information report. Explanation with regard to delay is improbable and does not inspire confidence. Written complaint said to be lodged with the local police station on the next day has not been produced in Court. Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 states no written complaint was filed by the lady. allegation of forcible rape also is shrouded in mystery. Victim (P.W.1) alleged her wearing apparels were torn and she had suffered injuries on her body. She had been medically treated at Manikchak Hospital. Neither the torn apparels nor record of her medical treatment is produced in Court. There is departure in her deposition of the victim vis-a-vis her statement in the first information report. While in first information report, she alleged she kept mum on the night of occurrence and disclosed the incident to her relations on the next day, in Court she stated that she raised hue and cry at night and disclosed the incident to local people. Disclosure of incident to P.Ws. 2 and 3 on the very night is, therefore, at variance with the prosecution case made out in the first information report. Motive to commit as disclosed in her statement before Magistrate