IMPORTANT POINT
The torn hymen as evidence of sexual assault, the credibility of the victim's allegations, and the failure of the accused to provide a defense or justify naming an alternative offender were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appellant has been convicted under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the appellant has to suffer a further year's imprisonment.

2. According to the minor victim then aged eight, there were three clear incidents of rape over a four-day period in the first week of June, 2013. The girl consistently maintained in course of her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and her testimony at the trial that the first incident was on a Saturday, the second incident was on the following Monday and the third incident was on Tuesday. According to the victim, on that Saturday in the first week of June, 2013, she accompanied her sister, Sita, and the sister's husband, the appellant herein, and their two-year-old daughter to a jungle at Laitlum in the hope of catching some fish. The girl narrated that while her sister Sita went on in one direction in the jungle, she, the appellant and the infant went another way and it was at such time that she was grabbed by the appellant, pushed to the ground and sexually assaulted upon her underpants being brought down. The victim even described the black underpants that the appellant wore on that day.

3. The victim recounted that she felt pain and bled and she raised a hue and cry but the same could not be heard by any person. The infant was around nearby but was too young to realise what was going on. She reported that the appellant apparently threatened to kill her if she mentioned the incident to any other person. The victim then claimed that on the following Monday the appellant called the victim to the appellant's hut which was in the vicinity of the victim's residence. The appellant apparently wanted a torch and when the victim carried the torch to the appellant's hut, she claimed that she was pinned down on the bed and raped. Again, she was threatened with dire consequences and she asserted that she was too afraid to speak of the matter. The victim recollected that on the following day she was called by her brother-in-law on the pretext of bringing a wait and, again, forced on the bed and raped. She reiterated that she was threatened again.

4. In the confusion that followed and the trauma that the victim must have experienced, she did not report the matter or any of the incidents to any person for some time. It appears that after a few days, she first reported the matter to another sister Shita who then informed their mother, Nianti, and the mother informed the victim's brother and other relatives.

5. Sister Shita corroborated the fact that she was the first to be informed of the incidents, whereupon she reported the matter to her mother and other relatives. In her deposition at the trial, she clearly stated that she had not accompanied the victim and the others to the jungle on that Saturday. It was clear that Shita had not witnessed any of the incidents complained of by the victim, but that the victim had first confided in Shita. Another sister, Sita, the wife of the appellant herein, also testified at the trial and she confirmed that she had gone to the jungle with her husband, their daughter and the victim on the relevant Saturday but she had gone in a different direction and did not know of what transpired with the victim on that day or on the other days that the victim reported to have been raped. The appellant's wife, however, stated that from or about the time that she came to know of the victim being sexually assaulted by her husband, she ceased to live with her husband. In course of the cross-examination, some kind of motive was attempted to be attributed, but without any success.

6. Several questions have been raised on behalf of the appellant to challenge the judgment of conviction of August 3, 2018 and the sentence that was pronounced on August 8, 2018. According to the appe