In cases of sexual violence, a significant delay in reporting, coupled with evidence of community-led negotiations for marital settlements, creates substantial doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative, necessitating a higher standard of scrutiny where conviction cannot be sustained on inconsistent, non-corroborated testimony.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2008 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Purulia in S.C.No.7 of 2008 / S.T.No.14 of 2008, thereby convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

2. The case of the prosecution, inter alia, was that on 31.10.2007 at about 17:45 hrs., PW-1 the complainant lodged a written complaint with the Kenda Police Station alleging that the present appellant used to violate her since last six months and when the matter came to light, the appellant assured to marry her. On 19.10.2007 in the evening, the appellant committed rape upon her against her will and thereafter the appellant refused to marry her.

3. Accordingly, Kenda Police Station started Kenda P.S. Case No.44/07 dated 31.10.2007 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. After completion of investigation, PW-15 Vijay Bhonsle submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia against the appellant.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on 29.01.2008 which was read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses besides documentary evidences to prove their case but the defence did not adduce any evidence. 7. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. “PW-1 stated, inter alia, in her examination-in-chief that on 1st Kartick of the Bengali year, there was an incident when she was at home alone. Her parents went outside for work. It was then dark. At that time, Bhaktaranajn Mahato entered into her house and after undressing her, committed ‘Dhorshon’ (rape). Before that, there was no such incident took place. Her father returned back and found Bhaktaranjan Mahato fleeing away. Father called the villagers. Bhaktaranjan told her that he would go to marry her. A date for registry marriage was fixed 8 days after. PW-1 went to the registry office and also Bhaktaranjan went and before registration, Bhaktaranjan went away and the case was lodged.

ii. In cross-examination, PW-1 stated specifically that she did not raise hue and cry when she saw Bhaktaranjan entering into their house. PW-1 could not say the duration of ‘dharshan’ – PW-1 could not say how much after dharshan, her father came. PW-1 was in her house when father came and she was washing utensils which was done at the entrance passages. Mother did not return on that night. At night, PW-1 had a talk with father. She told him to get her marriage with Bhaktaranjan. Application was submitted for registration of their marriage and the advocate was present there. From registry office, they returned to the police station and at the registry office, Baneswar Goswami (PW-14) was present. FIR was prepared in the Court premises. PW-1 knew that was written in the FIR. She told about what to write. Police took her to the Court for recording statement before the Magistr