The sufficiency of the victim's statement alone in a rape case and the corroboration of the victim's statement by other witnesses are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Sahidullah Munshi, J. - This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly in Sessions Trial No. 1(1)/2013 (Sessions Case no. 297/2012), thereby convicting the appellant under charges for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that one Sarbani Bhattacharya, Inspector-in-charge of AHCU of CID, West Bengal lodged a written complaint on 02.08.2012 before the Officer-in-charge of Gurap Police Station, District Hooghly to the effect that on 01.08.2012 she along with CID team together with a number of Government Officials and few others visited Jana Sikhsha Prachar Kendra for interrogation of the inmates of Dulal Smriti Sansad, Gurap, as the inmates of Dulal Smriti Sansad, shifted to the said home for safe custody on 12.07.2012. The team had been to the Home, Jana Sikhsha Prachar Kendra, Jangipara in connection with Gurap PS case no. 57 dated 11.07.2012 under Section 302/201/34 IPC.

3. The appellant was placed on trial before trial Court to answer charges for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code in connection with Sessions Trial No. 11 of January, 2013 Sessions Case no. 297 of 2012.

4. After completion of investigation the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate upon receipt of such charge-sheet took cognizance of the offence; committed the case before the learned Sessions Judge at Hooghly. Learned trial Judge framed charges under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the charges were read over and explained to the appellant while he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pleaded innocence. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhattacharya who was appointed amicus curiae by this Court strenuously argued in support of the appeal praying acquittal and left no stone unturned to prove that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal and based on a finding on which no order of punishment could have been passed at all rather, he submitted that the accused is innocent and deserves to be acquitted. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that evidence on record does not justify conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and thus he submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside. He further submitted that it was apparent from the evidence that the de facto complainant who is a CID Officer without having any evidence of an offence narrated by the victim who was a psychiatric patient initiated the proceeding and harassed the appellant and the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the same. He further submitted that PW2 stated in her evidence that the victim was not normal and therefore, learned trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance that the accused committed an offence under Section 376 upon such an abnormal resident of the Home and consequently the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the punishment awarded by the learned Judge is too harsh to communicate with the offence complained of and thus sentence is not maintainable. According to Mr. Bhattacharya prosecution has failed to prove the offence of rape of the victim and therefore, the order of sentence is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that proper opportunity was not given to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted because of irregularities on the part of the Court.

6