IMPORTANT POINT
Corroboration of the victim's testimony by other witnesses and the interpretation of medical evidence in cases of minor rape are crucial in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 and 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Sessions Trial No. 02(06) of 2006 arising out of Sessions Case No. 28(01) of 2006 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-only, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year more.

2. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 21.08.2004 at 2:30p.m., the second daughter of PW 1 aged around 11 years and his third daughter aged around eight years went to Bamandanga field to cut grass for feeding the goat. At that time the appellant was reaping jute in the field. He threatened the third daughter of PW 1 and drove her away. Then he dragged the victim i.e. the second daughter to a shallow machine room. The younger daughter returned to her residence and disclosed the incident. Mojaffar Modal (PW 7), nephew of PW 1, proceeded towards the field. On the way he saw the victim returning. She was in tears. She stated that the appellant had taken her to a shallow machine room and raped her. On the next day, PW 1 lodged written complaint resulting in registration of Ashokenagar Police Station Case No. 248 of 2004 dated 22.08.2004 under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In the course of investigation, the minor victim (PW 2) was medically examined. She made statement before Magistrate. Appellant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 and 10.01.2017 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Even Mujaffar Mondal, PW 7, nephew of the defacto complainant did not support the case. No injuries were found on the minor. There was a land dispute between the appellant and PW 1. Hence, the prosecution case is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned Counsel for the State submits deposition of the minor victim (PW 1) is corroborated by her sister (PW 5). Penetration was minimal. As a result, no injuries were found by the treating doctor. During his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appellant did not say that he was falsely implicated due to land dispute. The prosecution case is proved beyond doubt. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. PW 2, is the minor victim. She was 13 years old when she deposed in Court. Trial Judge examined her capacity to depose and recorded her version. She stated on the fateful day she had gone to her school. She returned home at around 12/1 P.M. Thereafter, she and her sister went to the field to cut the grass for feeding the goat. At that time the appellant was thrashing jute in the field. Appellant tripped her. She fell down. Thereafter, the appellant threatened her sister and asked her to leave the field. Appellant dragged her inside the sugarcane field and committed rape on her. Appellant threatened her not to disclose the incident. She returned home and narrated the incident to her mother. On the next day they lodged complaint. She was examined by Magistrate and treated by doctor. She proved her signature on the statement before Magistrate as well as the medical papers. She was cross-examined at length. However, no major contradiction could be elicited from her.

8. On the other hand, PW 5, her sister supported her version in Co