(1.) Challenging the legal pregnability of the judgement and order of conviction dated 31st July, 2013 and 1st August, 2013 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.67(9)/2012 by which the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant to serve out sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 493 I.P.C. along with default clause, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(2.) The prosecution case, as unfolded herewith is such that the so-called victim had developed a love affair with the accused/appellant and as a result of which, she was enticed away by the appellant on 1.7.2011. They took shelter in the house of Rabi Hembram and stayed there for about 29 days. In the meantime, sexual intercourse took place. On 29.7.2011, when the victim asked the appellant to marry her, he turned a deaf ear to. In such circumstances, she has lodged F.I.R. and set the law into motion.
(3.) The defence case as it appears to me from the trend of crossexamination and examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is his innocence and that he has been falsely implicated. In order to bring the accused booked the prosecution was under an obligation to show that the appellant had committed rape upon her without her consent and that the victim was below 18 years of age. The prosecution is further obliged to show from the evidence that under a belief that a lawful marriage took place by and between the parties, the victim herself surrendered her for cohabitation. Let us listen to the witnesses.