The delay in lodging the First Information Report and the sufficiency of evidence, particularly medical evidence and victim testimony, were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The appeal is directed against a judgement of conviction dated February 10, 2016 and order of sentence dated February 11, passed in S.T. 38 of 2014, S.C.90 of 2013, SC 241 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Hooghly.

2. By the impugned judgement of conviction, the appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of sentence, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of such fine he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the learned Trial Judge overlooked the delay in lodgment of the First Information Report. He points out that, the alleged incident was claimed to occur on January 18, 2012 while the First Information Report was lodged on January 25, 2012. Therefore, there was a delay of seven days in lodging the First Information Report. He points out that, the prosecution was unable to explain such delay.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, no student of the class was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the claim of the victim. He points out that, the injury report does not speak of the victim suffering from any penetrative sexual assault. Moreover, the chronology of events sought to be established at the trial by the prosecution was not completed. In other words the chain of events were not completed by the prosecution for a conviction to occur.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, the prosecution was able to establish the charge as against the appellant successfully. He refers to the deposition and evidence adduced at the trial in support of such contention.

6. The father of the victim lodged a written complaint with the police on January 25, 2012 complaining of rape of the victim, who was 10 years old at that point of time, by the appellant. On the basis of such complaint, the police registered a First Information Report under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On conclusion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Charge under such section was framed as against the appellant on August 8, 2014.

7. At the trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. 15 documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code where, the appellant claimed himself to be innocent and falsely implicated.

8. P.W.1, is the father of the victim. He stated in his evidence that, the incident occurred on January 18, 2012. He stated that, he was at the hospital for treatment of his mother when he got a phone call around 7:30/8 P.M. from his wife. His wife informed him that the victim was bleeding from her vagina. Victim went to take tuition from the appellant. Victim used to take tuition from the appellant regularly. P.W.1 stated that he advised his wife to take victim to hospital. His wife took the victim to the Panduah Hospital where the victim was referred to Chinsurah Hospital. At the Chinsurah Hospital, the victim was admitted and was discharged thereafter. He enquired of the victim as to the incident when the victim confided in him that the appellant penetrated her vagina with his penis. The victim narrated the incident to him. He lodged the police complaint and again got the victim admitted in hospital for 10 days. He spoke about the seizure effected by the police including the seizure of the birth certificate of the victim and the Jimmanama executed by him. Documents tendered by the appellant marked as exhibits at the trial. He identified the appellant in Court. He was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant at length. Appellant was unable to extract anything favourable to him by such cross-examinat