The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and timeline of events to establish the occurrence of the rape, despite challenges to the credibility of the evidence.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - A police complaint was lodged at Kotwali Police Station of Nadia District on September 29, 2018 relating to the rape of the victim. The police complaint was lodged by the brother of the victim. It was alleged in such complaint that, the appellant took the victim to the Sadar Hospital pretending to visit the wife of the de facto complainant. After visiting the wife of the de facto complainant at the Sadar Hospital the appellant told the victim that he would drop the victim at her house by a Maruti Vehicle. After boarding the Maruti Vehicle the appellant constricted the mouth of the victim by a handkerchief and went with her to Bishnupur. After alighting the vehicle at Bishnupur the appellant took the victim into a garden and raped her. The incident occurred at 7 PM in the evening.

2. On the basis of such written complaint, the police registered a First Information Report being Kotwali Police Station, F.I.R No. 462/18, dated September 28, 2018 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet being No. 610/2016 dated December 19, 2018 against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court framed a charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant. The charge stated that on September 27, 2018 at about 3 PM at noon, in the field of village Kanai Nagar, Belar Math, behind the Bishnupur Hospital over the land of one Sampad Raha under Kotwali Police Station, the appellant committed rape on the victim and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. At the trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code where, the appellant claimed innocence. He also claimed that, there was no nexus between him and the alleged crime and that he was falsely implicated in the case. He, however, did not adduce any evidence.

5. The brother of the victim deposed as PW 1. He stated that, on the relevant day at about 8 PM to 8:30 PM he received a phone call from his maternal uncle. His maternal uncle informed him that, the appellant left the victim at the mango garden in serious bleeding condition. After receiving such information, he along with his parents went to the house of the maternal uncle. Thereafter, they took the victim to the police station. They came to the hospital for treatment of the victim. The victim was admitted at the hospital. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and lodged a written complaint before the police. The written complaint was written by one Amit Saha as per his instruction. He identified the written complaint which was marked as Exhibit 1. He stated that the wearing apparel of the victim were handed over to the Police Officer on the next day. Police Officer made a seizure list which was tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit 2. His signatures on the label in respect of the wearing apparel were tendered in evidence and marked as Exhibit 3.

6. In cross-examination PW 1 stated that, the appellant is a friend of his brother-in-law. Prior to the incident, the appellant visited their house only once. He stated that, they went to the police station for lodging complaint at about 1 AM in the night, thereafter they went to the hospital. After admitting the victim to the hospital they rushed to the police station to lodge the complaint.

7. The victim deposed as PW 2. She stated that, she knew the appellant and identified the appellant in Court. She stated that the incident took place in the evening in the field at Kanai Nagar. She stated that, her daughter-in-law was admitted at the hospital. She went to the hospital to deliver the meal to her daughter-in-law. The appellant accompanied her. She along with the appellant left the hospital between 5 to 6