The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and unimpeachable testimony, as well as the need for corroboration in cases of sexual assault.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 1(2) of 2005 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 4(1)of 2004 arising out of Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 147 of 2002 dated 23.05.2002 convicting thereby the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The aforesaid trial was the consequential result of the investigation, carried out by Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 147 of 2002 dated 23.05.2002 under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered on the basis of a written complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lodged by one Smt. Archana Mallick wife of Late Rangalal Mallick of Jagaddal Ukil Para, Narendrapur, Police Station – Sonarpur, District – South 24 Parganas, to the court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. In the said complaint it was alleged that on 05.11.2001 when the complainant was in her house alone and her daughters were at school, then at about 01:30 p.m. the accused entered the house and took off her wearing cloth and forcibly lay her on the floor and ravished her against her will and as a result the complainant lost her sense. After a long time the daughter of the complainant came to the house at about 04:00 p.m. subsequently other witnesses came there after hearing her cries. It was further alleged that the complainant had been to the local police station and lodged complaint which was entered into the G.D. Entry Book and no F.I.R. was lodged and as such the complainant filed the petition of complaint before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South), received by the Sonarpur Police Station on 23.05.2002, Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 143 dated 23.05.2002 under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation against the appellant.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, Charge-Sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 81 dated 15.04.2003 was submitted by the investigation agency under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant before the Court of the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 15.04.2003.

5. Upon receipt of the aforesaid Charge-Sheet the Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, was pleased to take cognizance of the same against the present appellant. Thereafter upon completion of formalities the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 28.09.2003 wherefrom it was transferred to the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, on 02.01.2004, for trial and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 4(1) of 2004.

6. The Learned Judge upon perusal of the materials so placed before the Learned Court was pleased to frame charge on 15.02.2005 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was renumbered as Session Trial No. 1(2) of 2005.

7. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge so framed against the appellant examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

8. The Learned Advocate for the appellant stated that the alleged incident occurred on 05.11.2001 at 01:30 p.m. The victim in her evidence deposed that she had informed the alleged incident before Sonarpur Police Station on the date of the incident. But the prosecution did not take any initiative to produce the said General Diary before the Court during the trial and the victim also did