JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

The Appeal :-

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Truck Court 1st Court, Tamluk in Sessions Case No. 492 (September) 2008 (Sessions Trial No. 28(4)2013 arising out of Tamluk Police Station Case No. 24 of 2008 dated 14.02.2008 thereby convicting the appellants for the commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month.

Prosecution Case:-

2. The allegations in the written complaint against the Appellants are as follows:-

“that on 10.02.2008 at about 6:30-7.00p.m. the victim girl namely Ratna Maity daughter of P.W.1, a deaf and dumb girl of 17 years, went to house of the P.W.14 at Village Biswas and was enjoying T.V. Programme. That at the time while P.W.14 was in kitchen the appellants and another person took her away forcibly against her will and ravished her. That on search, P.W.14 found her returning from the side of the river Rupnarayan and she was weeping at that time. That the victim girl indicated by her gesture to the P.W.14 and her mother that she had been raped by the appellants. That on hearing their hue and cry local villagers and neighbors assembled at the scene. That the victim girl identified the culprits in presence of a number of persons by holding hands of the accused persons.”

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint lodged by the said Sankar Prasad Maity (PW-1), father of the victim girl, Tamluk Police Station Case No. 24 of 2008 dated 14.02.2008 for offences punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation against the appellant and another.

4. Charge Sheet No. 85 of 2008 dated 29.05.2008 under Sections 376(2)(g)/551/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted against the appellant and another.

5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. Charge was framed under Sections 376/511 of I.P.C.

7. The appellants pleaded “not guilty” to such charges and claimed to be tried.

8. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents.

9. The defence did not examine any witness of its own, but through a process of effective cross examination, tired to probablize its own case and improbablize the prosecution case.

10. Upon conclusion of trial, by the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2015 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 1st Court, Tamluk in Sessions Case No. 492 (September) 2008 (Sessions Trial No. 28(4)2013) the appellant was convicted for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month.

11. The defense case is of innocence and false implication.

12. Hence the appeal on the grounds:-

i) That, the trial established certain discrepancies centering the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence and that the appellants have been falsely framed in the case due to political rivalry.

ii) That there were material contradictions between the version of the victim i.e. the P.W.4 in the First Information Report, her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and her deposition before the Learned Judge in course of trial.

iii) That, the alleged incident took place on 10.02.2008 and the First Information Report was lodged as late as on 14.02.2008. Failure to explain such delay is indicative of the hollowness of the prosecution case.

iv) That, there were serious discrepancies and exaggeration in the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.14.

v) That while making statement before the Learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the victim girl referred to four persons who took h