JUDGMENT : 

CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J.

1. This appeal is filed against an judgement and order dated January 29, 2014 and January 30^th,2014 passed by Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court at Kandi, Murshidabad in Session trial no. 1 (January) 2012 whereby the appellant was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. The appellant was further directed to pay a fine of Rs.20, 000 in default to suffer R.I. for one year six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Brief fact

2. A complaint was lodged on January1, 2006 by the de-facto complainant/mother alleging that since last 6/7 months the appellant co- habited with her daughter with a promise to marry her without their knowledge and she has been impregnated of 5 to 6 months. After knowing the fact the de-facto complainant and her family members requested the appellant to marry her but he and his men and agent refused such proposal of marriage. Accordingly the complaint was lodged.

3. On the basis of such complaint Burwan P.S. Case was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and on completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted under same Section against the present appellant. Since the case was exclusively triable by a Court of Session the case was transferred to the Court of Learned Additional Session Judge, Kandi on commitment and the charge was framed by the Learned Additional Session Judge, First Fast Track Court at Kandi for disposal. The Learned Court framed the charge against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced. In order to establish the case prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The Learned Trial Court after considering the evidences and the argument advanced by the parties passed the order of conviction against the present appellant.

Being aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of conviction this appeal has been filed.

Submissions

4. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the victim was a major lady and she voluntarily entered into such sexual relations and it was consensual. The family of the de-facto complainant after came to learn about the incident did not lodge any complaint rather went for a talk of compromise and demanded huge amount and on refusal by the present appellant to pay such an hefty amount he has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that in a catena of decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere breach of promises to marry does not constitute Rape which is absolutely promising since the victim was aware of the fact that the appellant was a married person. No injury report was found during investigation and no force was applied and the victim was not a minor. It is further submitted that there was no misconception of the victim as she was very much aware about the marital status of the present appellant which can be found from her evidence. That apart the victim admitted to have received a wrist watch from the appellant and he has been framed since he did not agree to the extraneous consideration. It is further submitted that the Learned Trial Court ought to have disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 1 which is full of inconsistencies .The judgement was passed considering the testimony of the victim girl without considering the evidences as a whole and that circumstantial evidence is not suggestive of commission of any rape.

5. Per contra the Learned Prosecution raises vehement objection to the submissions made by the appellant. It is his contention that the appellant from the very beginning was never interested to marry the victim And he only gave her false promises to marry to fulfil his lust .The appellant made her believe that he had no issue and that if she gives him issue he would marry her. Later on when the girl