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

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas CRA 766 Of 2013 Subrata Ghosh -Versus-

The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Bhaskar Chakraborty , Ms. Sulagna Sen.

For the State : Mr. Bidyut Kumar Ray, Ms. Rita Dutta.

Hearing concluded on : 26.06.2025 Delivered on : 18.09.2025 Prasenjit Biswas, J:-

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 4th Court, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in connection with S.T. Case No. 1(12) 2008 arising out of S.C. Case No. 20(7) of 2008 filed at the behest of the appellant/convict.

2. By passing the impugned judgment and order this appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. This appellant was further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the victim from the said fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of conviction the present appeal is preferred on behalf of this appellant.

4. In short campus the story of the prosecution is delineated hereunder-

“The defacto complainant (father of the victim) lodged a complaint stating interalia that on 06.03.2008 when his daughter (victim), aged about 7 years was playing with other children on Panchanantala Seba Samiti, Shibpuja Yard and at that time at about 11:30 am the accused Subrata Ghosh who is a grocer allured the victim to give lozenge and called her at his grocery shop which is situated adjacent to the ground. It is further stated in the written complaint that the accused opened the upper garments of the victim and forcefully pressed her breasts. The accused caught hold the throat of the victim and threatened her to assault if she would make shout. The accused tried to open her panties, then the victim started to cry in a loud voice. Hearing her cry the people from the Puja Pandle rushed to the shop and seeing them the accused fled away from the spot.”

5. Over the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant a case being Jagaddal P.S. Case No. 81 of 2008 dated 06.03.2008 under Sections 376 (2) (f)/ 511/ 323 of IPC was registered. Thus, the criminal law was set in motion. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency under Section 376 (2) (f) / 511/ 323 of the Indian Penal Code against this appellant.

6. Charge was framed by the Trial Court under Section 376 (2) (f) / 511 of the Indian Penal Code against this appellant.

7. In this case 9 witnesses were cited on behalf of the prosecution and documents were marked as exhibits 1 to 4 on its behalf. Neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defense.

8. Mr. Bhaskar Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has said that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable under the eye of law as there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. It is said by the learned Advocate that no explanation was given by the side of the prosecution for delay in lodging the FIR. The incident took place at about 11 am in the morning but the formal FIR shows that the information was received by the police personnel on 16.:15 hours. The attention of this Court was drawn to the evidence of PW7 who is the scribe in the written complainant and stated in his evidence that he was informed over telephone in between 4-5 pm and he reached the police station at about 7:30 – 8:00 pm. Mr. Chakraborty further contended that the place of occurrence has not been determined properly as no sketch map was prepared by the investigating officer and this was admitted by PW9 (I.O) of t