JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.

1. The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 19/09/2015 and order of sentence dated 22/09/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 4(1) of 2009 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case owes its origin to the written complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant being the mother of the victim. It is stated in the written complaint that the victim was missing from the evening of 11/10/2008. In spite of thorough search she could not be traced out. She returned home next morning in a disoriented condition. On query she disclosed that the Appellant induced the victim on 11/10/2008, in the evening, to accompany him to a hotel at Murshidabad. The Appellant took the victim in a room located in the second floor and committed rape upon her. In spite of resistance made by the victim the Appellant represented her that he would marry. On the next morning, he allowed her to go on understanding that she would tell her parents that they are married. When the entire incident was intimated by the victim to the de-facto complainant, her mother, she stated the same to her husband as well as to the local people. Initially the father of the Appellant stated that the matter would be settled in local salishi with intervention of local people, but the salishi fared no fruitful result. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant lodged the written complaint in Beherampur Police Station, Murshidabad.

3. The written complaint was received on 18/10/2008 at 11:15 hours and was registered as P.S. Case No. 05/08/2008 dated 18/10/2008 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Formal F.I.R was drawn up and an Investigating Officer was entrusted with investigating into the case. The victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded; she was medically examined; her wearing apparels were seized on preparing seizure list. Apart from this, hotel register was seized from the concerned hotel, namely, Hansraj Hotel. Ossification test of the victim was also conducted to ascertain her age. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions it was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad wherefrom it was transferred to the Trial Court on taking cognizance of the offence.

4. Charge was framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the Appellant to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the trial began.

5. In course of trial the prosecution produced sixteen witnesses. Various documents produced and admitted as evidence were marked as Ext. 1 to 7. Wearing apparels of the victim were adduced in evidence and marked collectively as Mat. Ext. 1.

6. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Appellant.

7. Defence of the Appellant, as appears from the trend of cross-examination as well as from the answers given in course of examination by the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is false implication.

8. The Trial Court found the Appellant guilty of charge leveled under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him according. The Trial Court sentenced him with rigorous imprisonment for seven years as well as fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default of which additional rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

9. On being aggrieved and dissatisfied the incident is preferred.

10. Mr. Ganguly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that:

Firstly, there is a delay of eight days in lodging the FIR. It is in the evidence that the de-facto complainant waited for settlement through salishi. Salishi took place on 14/10/2008 but the written complaint was lodged on 18/10/2008. There is delay of four days which is unexplained importing chances of concoction, coloration and deliberation in lodgi