The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony and the importance of trustworthy and unblemished evidence in cases of rape.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Jude, 1st Fast Track Court at Berhampore in Sessions Case No. 252/2009 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 3(02)/2011 thereby convicting the appellant for committing offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. On 19th August, 2008, the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating, inter alia, that she is a widow. She has been running her livelihood selling cloths. On 17th August, 2008 at about 6 p.m. she was returning to her house after purchasing some printed saree from the shop of one Morjem Hossein. On the way to her house when she reached Goatipara near a banana garden, the accused caught hold of her. There was a scuffling between the de facto complainant and the accused and the saree which she was purchased from the shop of Morjem Hossein fell from her hand scatteredly on the road. With the intention to commit rape, the accused pressed the mouth of the de facto complainant and forcibly took her inside the banana garden. Then, the accused made her lie down on the ground and unrest her. When he attempted to rape her, the de facto kicked the accused violently on her abdomen and somehow left the place and rushed towards the road. She raised hue and cry which attracted many people near the spot. Seeing them, the accused fled away inside the banana garden. The de facto complainant informed the incident to the local Police Station but police did not take any action against the accused.

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate upon receiving complaint sent the same to the local Police Station directing the Officer-in-Charge to start a specific case treating the same as FIR.

From the endorsement made in the said complaint, it is ascertained that Police received the complaint on 15th September, 2008 and started Daulatabad Police Station Case No. 66/2008 dated 15th September, 2008 under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

The materials-on-record further reveals that on completion of investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. After the case being committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, it was transferred to the 1st Fast Track Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Berhampore, Murshidabad for trial and disposal.

The learned Trial Judge framed charge against the accused under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused pleaded not guilty trial of the case commenced. In course of trial, prosecution examined 10 witnesses.

No witness was, however, examined on behalf of the accused/defence. It is, however, ascertained from the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accused had taken the plea of denial of the prosecution case. The

learned Trial Judge on due consideration of evidence on record held

that the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the accused and convicted him for committing offence under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly.

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

At the outset, it is pertinent to record that the de facto complainant deposed during trial of the case as P.W. 1. The prosecution, however, could not examine the said Morjem Hossein who was cited as witness no. 1 in the petition of complaint. P.W. 2, Siraj Sk., P.W. 3, Kamal Sk., P.W. 4, Pintu Sk. did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 5, Mafizul Sk. was tendered by the prosecution for crossexamina