IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CRA/325/2006 SAMAR DEBANGSI VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL Present:-

HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS.

For the Appellant: Ms. Trina Mitra, Adv. For the State : Ms. Shaila Arfin, Adv.

Ms. Sana Naaz, Adv.

Last Heard on : 02.04.2025 Judgement on : 25.04.2025 CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated April 25, 2006 and April 26, 2006 respectively passed by the Learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Kandi, Murshidabad in Session trial No 2 of 2003/Session serial no. 67 of 2002.

2. The learned trial court vide his judgement found the present petitioner guilty of an offence of outraging modesty of the victim and an attempt to commit Rape upon her and thereby passed the order of conviction punishable under section 354 and 376/511 IPC against the present appellant and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a term of two years in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months for the offence committed under section 354 IPC. The learned court further passed the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 ½ years and to pay a fine of Rs 5000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 6 months for the offence committed under section 376/511 IPC .

3. Being aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant for setting aside the said Judgement and order of conviction. Bereft of any details, the fact of the case is that the accused/appellant attempted to rape on February 6, 1998 at about 5 P.M at a sugarcane field when she went to attend nature’s call.

4. on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant/victim before the Burwan Police Station on February 8, 1998 against the appellant herein and Burwan P.S. case No 81/98 dated February 8, 1998 under Section 354/376 Indian Penal Code started and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted charge sheet No 18/1998 dated 27.03.1998 under Section 354/376/34/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Samar Debangsi being the present appellant. The case was transferred after the commitment from the Court of Learned SDJM Kandi to the Court of Additional Session Judge Kandi. The charge against the accused persons were read over and explained to him to whom he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial commenced and the Learned Trial court found the accused guilty of the offence committed under section 354 and 376/511 IPC.

5. Submission The learned defence counsel argues that, a) the impugned judgement and order of conviction is bad-in-law and passed without considering the evidence led before the Court on behalf of the Defence Counsel.

b) The evidence of the prosecution witnesses specially the evidence of prosecutrix that there has been a long-standing dispute with the appellant over a plot of land was not considered by the court c) There has been an in ordinate delay in lodging the complaint which made a dent to the prosecution in establishing the story.

d) The Learned court failed to pass the order of conviction solely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the defacto complainant in absence of Injury report or evidence of any Doctor. No ingredients to attract section 376 IPC can be found either from the evidence of the victim .

e) The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts .There exists glaring inconsistencies and contradictions which are apparent on bare reading of the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses.

f) The contradiction cast clouds regarding the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses accordingly urged this court to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant.

6. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the prosecution supports the judgement of conviction and order of sentence and it is argued that a complaint was lodged by the de-facto co