- (1.) Victim was a resident of village Raghunathpur, Police Station Kalyani in the District of Nadia. On September 17, 1984 she came to visit her elder sister during Biswakarma Puja. In the afternoon she went out with a neighbour of her elder sister, wife of Dr. Balai Das to witness puja. While she was coming back from the house of the said neighbour, Subal Dey and Kamal Dey asked her to go with them, otherwise they would kill her by a dagger. Subal covered her mouth with his hands and Kamal pressed her hand and compelled her to ride on a cycle. One Swapan Das and another person were with them. Subsequently, she came to know that the fourth companion was Budhan. All of them took her to the jute field. She tried to shout when the accused threatened her with the weapon. Subal removed her garments and caused her to fall on the field. One by one, all of them raped her against her will. Kamal stayed back and others left. She remained in such condition for some time and then she went back to her sister's place with much pain. She disclosed the incident to Malati, her sister and her brother in-law Priyalal Mondal. She sustained injury on different parts of her body. She had severe pain on her body. Her wrist watch and the bag containing rupees twenty-five were snatched by the accused. The written complaint was lodged by the victim on the next day at Kalyani Police Station. The Police Station received the said complaint at 12.35 p.m. on September 18, 1984 as would appear from Exhibit-2. The Police arrested all the four accused. They pleaded not guilty and opted to be tried.
(2.) Evidence P.W.1 (Victim): The victim deposed as P.W.1. She narrated the incident in detail. She was consistent on her statement as we find on a comparative study of the written complaint and her deposition. In cross-examination she reiterated that she went out with Dr. Balai Das's wife and her daughter to see Biswakarma idol. She watched the idol at the factory of Somani. P.W.2 (Dr. Debi Sankar Misra): Doctor certified that all the four accused were found potent on Medical Examination. P.W.3 (Dr. Saiba Kumar Nath): The witness was also a doctor who examined the victim to ascertain her actual age. According to him, the age of the girl was twenty years on the date of examination. Pertinent to note, the incident occurred on September 18,1984 whereas the Ossification Test was done on September 3, 1987 meaning thereby the victim was seventeen years old on the date of the unfortunate incident. P.W.4. (Priya Lal Mondal): He was a post occurrence witness. He almost corroborated what the victim had stated. He took her to the house of Kalipada Chakraborty, member of the local gram panchayat where other villagers were present. In their presence, Kamal admitted his offence by making an extrajudicial confessiona. P.W.5 (Malati Mondal): The witness was her elder sister. She also corroborated the victim and her husband Priya Lal Mondal being P.Ws.1 and 4 respectively. P.W.6 (Jaharlal Mondal): The witness was the brother of Priya Lal Mondal. She also corroborated the other witnesses referred to above. P.W.7 (Ranjan Baidya): The witness was the another villager who was declared hostile. P.W.8 (Kala Chand Pal): P.W.8 was a tender witness. P.W.9 (Kamal Sarkar): The witness was a villager. He was a post occurrence witness. He accompanied the victim to the Police Station and scribed the FIR at the dictation of the victim. P.W.10 (Kalipada Mondal): The witness was another brother of Priya Lai. He also corroborated the victim and her relatives referred to above. P.W.11 (K.B. Ali): The witness was attached to the Kotwali Police Station. He registered the FIR lodged by the victim on September 18,1984. P.W.12 (Guru Pada Sadhukhan) and P.W.13 (Moni Mohan Bhowmick): The witness (P.W.12) escorted the accused to Ranaghat Hospital for Medical Examination whereas P.W.13, another constable escorted the victim to Sadar Hospital for her Medical Examination. P.W.14 (Kali Pada Chakraborty): The witness was declared hostile. He denied that Priya Lal had called him to make a complaint or that Kamal had made a confessional statement before him. P.W.15 (Dr. Chitta Ranjan Dey): The witness was the doctor who examined the victim on September 20,1984 being the fourth day after the incident. He deposed that the victim had at least four injuries caused within seven days prior to the date of examination. He however deposed that there was no internal injury and the hymen was absent. P.W.16 (Radheshyam Das): The witness was the Investigating Officer. He narrated how the investigation was conducted by him including recording of statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. P.W.17 (Bhusan Mondal): The witness took up the investigation at a later stage. He caused the Ossification Test done at Krishnanagar Hospital. He submitted charge- sheet. Accused The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All of them denied the charge. Judgment Considering the evidence so discussed above, the learned Assistant Session Judge, Ranaghat held all of them guilty of the offence and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Pertinent to note, the incident occurred in September 1984 whereas the Section 376 had undergone a change and Section 376(2)(g) was brought into effect with effect from December 25,1983 which, inter alia, provides more stricter punishment in case of a "gang rape".
(3.) Appeal Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Assistant Session Judge, Ranaghat, the appellants preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned date. Contention of the appellants Ms. Chandreyi Alam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that when the victim volunteered to disclose that it was her first experience of sexual intercourse it was unusual that no injury could be found on her private parts internally on otherwise. Such unusual event would definitely raise doubt in the mind of the Court leading to acquittal of the accused. Such suspicion was strengthened by the medical evidence when the doctor deposed that hymen was absent which was absolutely unusual in case of first experience. Ms. Alam further contended that the wearing apparels were not produced at the time of trial. No blood was found by the Investigating Officer. There was considerable delay in lodging the FIR which would lead to suspicion in the mind of the Court that the complaint might be an afterthought and was lodged for oblique purpose. In support of her contention Ms. Alam relied on two Apex Court decisions in the case of Lalliram and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 10 SCC 69 and in the case of Premiya alias Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 10 SCC 81.;