The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely lodging of FIR, the importance of evidence in proving the intention and knowledge of the accused in outraging the modesty of the victim, and the consequences of delay in sending the report to the Magistrate.

JUDGMENT

Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23rd August, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nabadwip, Nadia in Sessions Trial No.48(Sept) 15 corresponding to Sessions Case No.7(9) 15 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine and default clause, is assailed in the instant appeal.

2. The appellant is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant.

3. Elder brother of the appellant is the husband of the de facto complainant. On 23rd March, 2015 she lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-charge, Nabadwip Police Station stating, inter alia, that her husband used to work in Kerala at the relevant point of time. In absence of her husband she used to stay at her matrimonial home with her minor child. The brother-in-law and parents-in-law of the de facto complainant used to stay in the same house with her. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that in absence of her husband her brother-in-law namely Entajul Sk @ Intajul Sk used to give bad proposal to her. On 21st March, 2015 at about 4 P.M. the said Entajul Sk @ Intajul Sk pounced upon her and tried to commit rape upon her.

4. She somehow resisted the accused and informed the incident to her father-in-law and mother-in-law. But they and Entajul Sk @ Intajul Sk assaulted her indiscriminately. They also tried to commit murder of the de facto complainant by strangulation. When she was raising hue and cry, her younger son rushed to the room where the incident took place and somehow saved his mother. Immediately they left the said house and started to come to Chapra to her paternal home by bus.

5. After getting down at Chapra from bus the de facto complainant lost her sense. Her father got the information and admitted her to the local hospital. On the basis of the said complaint police registered Nabadwip Police Station Case No.134 of 2015 dated 23rd March, 2015 against the accused persons and took up the case for investigation.

6. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused Entajul Sk @ Intajul Sk under Sections 376/511 and Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge sheet was also submitted against other two accused persons under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. As the offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Nabadwip. The appellant and other accused persons duly appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nabadwip to face trial.

8. Charge sheet was framed against Entajul Sk @ Intajul Sk under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against the father-in- law and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant was framed under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the accused persons pleaded not guilty, trial of the case commenced.

9. During trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.

10. They were duly cross-examined. The defence case as disclosed from the cross-examination of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears to be complete denial of the prosecution story.

11. The learned trial Judge on due consideration of evidence on record and argument advanced by the prosecution and the defence convicted the accused Entajul Sk @ Intajul Sk for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. Other two accused persons were acquitted from the charge.

12. The convict/appellant has assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the instant appeal.

13. During trial of the case, the de facto complainant deposed as P.W.1. It is ascertained from her evidence that on 21st March, 2015 at