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

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas Mudi Singh -Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, Mr. Sankar Paul, Ms. Kumari Shipra roy, Ms. Kakan Das.

For the State : Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Ms. Rituparna Saha.

Hearing concluded on : 21.08.2025 Judgment On : 31.10.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. This appeal is directed at the instance of the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in connection with Sessions Case No. 37/98, corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 13/99.

2. By passing the impugned judgement this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 415 of the Indian Penal code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs. 7000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant.

3. The complainant filed a case being Cr 165/96 before the Court stating, interalia that-

“ the accused Mudi Singh and his parents are her co-

villagers and the accused Mudi Singh used to come in the house of the defacto complainant in almost every date with whom a love affairs had grown in between them. The accused gave a proposal of cohabitation with the defacto complainant but the complainant refused the illegal proposal of the accused. At that time the defacto complainant was aged about 15 years. It is further stated by the defacto complainant in the petition of complaint that in 13.03.1994 at about 6 P.M., the accused Mudi Singh came to their hose and asked the complainant to get entry in her bedroom and on good faith this complainant along with the accused entered the bedroom of the defacto complainant and the accused put a garland on the neck of the defacto complainant and convinced the defacto complainant to be his marriage wife and locked the door from inside. It is further stated that the accused asked the defacto complainant to do bad work with her but the complainant refused to do the same and thereafter the accused Mudi Singh forcibly took the complaint to bed and committed rape on her without her consent forcibly. It is said by the accused to the complainant that they became the husband and wife and he would marry her socially subsequently. It is further stated by the defacto complainant that thereafter the accused cohabited with her repeatedly and although the complainant asked the accused to marry her but he adopted dilatory tactics. The matter was brought to the notice of the mother of the defacto complainant and a ‘salish’ was called on 10.11.1996 through the brother of the defacto complainant. In that ‘salish’ the accused in presence of the some of the villagers confessed that he had enjoyed the victim and he would marry her but the accused persons demanded Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) from the mother of the complainant and told that if demand of dowry is fulfilled then he would marry the defacto complainant. As the mother of the complainant was unable to pay the said demanded amount of dowry to the accused, the accused Mudi Singh did not marry the complainant and refused to marry her. It is further contended in the written complainant that the accused wrote a letter to the defacto complainant on 27.06.1995 demanding dowry of Rs. 10000/- . The complaint filed by the victim before the Court was sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Karandighi P.S. to treat the same as FIR under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the criminal law was set in motion and after completion of investigation charge-

sheet was submitted by the Investigating Agency”.

4. The Trial Court framed the charge against this appellant under Sections 376, 493 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. In this