JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1^st Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial Case No. 28 of 1987. By the impugned judgment the accused/appellant Lalmohan Porel @ Lalmohan @ Lalu Porel has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction the present appeal is filed at the behest of the appellant.

3. Despite service effected upon the victim she chooses not to appear in this case.

4. In short campus the story of the prosecution is as follows.

The victim along with her parents and the convict-appellant used to live in the same village Pawnan, P.S. Singur, District- Hooghly. The house of the appellant is situated at a little distance from the house of the victim. In the month of November, 1984 appellant approached the victim with promise that he would marry her and giving her this assurance, he went on having sexual intercourse with the victim for a continuous period of almost every evening after taking the victim to some abandoned house at the village. At first the victim resisted but when the accused promised to marry her, she did not make any protest any further. As a result of such sexual intercourse the victim became pregnant. She reported the matter to the appellant and requested him to marry her, but the appellant Lalmohan did not agree to such a proposal and told the victim to abort the child in her womb. The victim then reported the incident to her parents and the parents reported the matter to the Anchal Prodhan. The Anchal Prodhan tried to arbitrate over the dispute by calling the appellant to a meeting to be held in the Anchal Office, but the appellant did not turn up and in his place the father of the appellant came before the Anchal Prodhan and gave her undertaking that he would produce his son on the next date. He did not produce his son before the Anchal Prodhan. Thereafter, the victim lodged complaint before Singur Police Station against the accused Lalmohan narrating the entire incident.

5. Over the complaint police started investigation being Singur P.S. Case No. 1 dated 02.02.1986 under Sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the criminal law was set in motion. Police investigated the case and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed by the Trial Court against this appellant under Section 376/420/493 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

6. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against this appellant has examined as many as 13 (thirteen) witnesses including PW1 (victim girl). PW2, Giribala Sasmal is the mother of the PW1, PW3, Prasad Ch. Sasmal is the father of PW1, PW4, Bhadrew Rai, PW5, Nirmal Santra, PW7, Khush Manna, Prodhan of Anandanagar Gram Panchayat and PW8, Sambhunath Bera. PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW8 are all common neighbours of both the accused and the victim girl. PW6 is Dr. Pradip Kumar Bagchi who holds the ossification test of the girl in order to ascertain her age and has given report about the age of the girl. PW9 and PW10 are the police officers. PW11 is the Judicial Officer who recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. PW12, Bharati Chandra and PW13, Dr. B.K. Das are the Medical Officers who medically examined the victim girl and the accused respectively and gave their opinions.

7. Mr. Kalal Mondal, Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that it is alleged that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was minor, but no authentic documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution in th