IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

CRA 341 OF 2007 KHOKAN DEBNATH VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL For the Appellant : Mr. Francis Samson Correa, Adv.

Mr. Sunny Nandy, Adv. Ms. Sneha Singh, Adv.

Ms. Yamini Tiwari, Adv.

For the State : Ms. Rituparna Ghose, Adv.

Mr. Santanu Talukdar, Adv.

Last heard on : 18.06.2025 Judgement on : 25.07.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated April 30,2007 passed by the Learned Additional District and Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No 79/2006 whereby the order of conviction was passed against the appellant under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and further convicted under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and also convicted under Section 376 /511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month more.

Case of prosecution

2. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R qua the written complaint as was submitted by Paritosh Debnath on September 5, 2006 against the present appellant alleging that on September 11, 2005 at about 6 P.M. before the (Shamuktala Police Station) when his minor daughter i.e. the victim girl went to watch the T.V programme at the house of his neighbour Khokan Dennath then by taking advantage of the absence of any one in the house, he tried to commit rape on his daughter. It was further alleged that he pressed a piece of cloth on his daughter’s mouth and she could not shout however she somehow managed to run away from his house. After that she narrated the entire incident to her mother which was informed to his relatives and neighbours. It was further mentioned in the written complaint that the de-facto complainant was asked to resolve the dispute within the village and accordingly a salish was called but no solution could be arrived resulting a delay in filing the complaint.

3. On the basis of the said written complaint the Shamuktala P.S. case No

87/2005 dated October 3^rd, 2005 under Section 342/376/511/566 IPC started against the appellant and after completion of investigation the I.O. submitted the charge sheet on 31.12.2005 under Section 342/376/511 /506 against the present appellant. The charges being triable exclusively by the Session Court the case was committed before the Learned Session Judge which was subsequently transferred to the court of Learned Additional District And Session Judge 1^ST Fast Track Court, Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri where the charges were framed by the Learned Court considering the materials on record under Section 342/376/511/506IPC against the accused person and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial commenced. The Learned court after hearing the parties and after assessing the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution passed the order of conviction against the present Appellant. Being aggrieved thereby this appeal has been filed.

Submissions

4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant took the point of inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is argued that the date of incident as alleged was on 11.09.2005 when the complaint was lodged on 5.9.2006 therefore there is a delay of 23 days and to substantiate the delay ground of Salishi has been taken but failed to prove the same by any cogent evidence .It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the complaint was lodged by the de-facto complainant at the police station by him because of the glaring inconsistencies in the evidence adduced by the de- facto complainant ,his wife PW3 ,the scribe P.W. 7 and the I.O. It is argued that each of the witnesses in their testimony disclose