ARINDAM LODH,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. S. Debnath, Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-appellant. Also heard Mrs. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.)This is an appeal against acquittal. The settled proposition of law is that acquittal of an accused from the charge levelled against him by the trial court reinforces his innocence. There will be double presumption of his innocence. Bearing in mind with the aforesaid principle of law, I proceed to dispose of the case. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. The relevant portion of the judgment may be extracted hereunder, for convenience:-
"20.At the time of hearing learned counsel for the accused contended that according to the evidence of PW-1, prosecutrix, she did not disclose the incident of forceful sexual intercourse upon her by the accused to her other family members on the night of occurrence out of shame and that she did not submit any complaint in the police station immediately after the incident and did not make any allegation that the accused promised to marry her and that she did not disclose the incident when the accused again came to her house on 14/10/2013 which clearly proves that the version of the complainant is an exaggerated one and it lacks confidence and therefore, the version of the complainant is highly unbelievable. Learned defence counsel also contended that PW-8, Doctor has also deposed in his cross-examination that on examination he found that the victim girl was habituated in sexual act meaning thereby, the victim girl would have had sexual intercourse several times. Learned defence counsel further contended that even if it has been assumed that there was sexual intercourse between the accused and the prosecutrix, the said intercourse was taken place with the consent of the prosecutrix and therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code."

(3.)Thereafter, the learned trial Judge in his finding stated thus:-
".....From the record it also appears that the complainant lodged the FIR in the Gandacherra Police Station on 2/11/2013. From this it is clear that the FIR was lodged after a considerable period from the date of incident in spite of the fact that the accused was having regular sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix for several occasions which would show that, by consent, the prosecutrix had willfully submitted herself to the accused to have sexual intercourse. The consent was not in consequence of any misconception of the fact and therefore, the benefit of doubt has to go in favour of the accused. From the evidence of the prosecutrix, PW-1 who is aged about 36 years at the time of giving her evidence before the court on 22/5/2017, it can be presumed that the prosecutrix voluntarily and consciously consented to have sexual intercourse with the accused and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact. When the prosecutrix, an adult, has given a belated complaint where there is evidence that she has given consent for such sexual intercourse, the act of the accused would not come within the purview of the Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code. From a close reading of the evidence given by the prosecutrix, it is easily discernible that only with her consent every sexual intercourse has been conducted."

;