- (1.) This revision application has been filed by Indrajit Saha @ Babu Saha challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the judgement and order dated 19.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia at Krishnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2003 thereby affirming the judgement and conviction of the petitioner for committing an offence under Sections 376/511 of the IPC passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia in Sessions case No. 21(6) of 2000/ Sessions Trial No. V(II) of 2000 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of L 10,000/-.
(2.) This revision application was disposed of on 14.1.2011 by this Court in absence of the parties and their learned Counsels. The same was recalled by an order dated 11.2.2011 on the grounds that the Administrative notice sent to the petitioner was served after delivery of the judgement by this Court.
(3.) The brief fact of the case before the learned Trial Court is that Jayanti Biswas, mother of Jolly Biswas lodged one FIR in Tehatta police station on 6.8.1998 stating therein that on 4.8.1998 when Jolly was at home alone, the petitioner, being a neighbour, entered into the house and committed rape on her minor daughter, Jolly, aged about 9 years. She felt severe pain on her person and narrated the incident to her mother when she returned back home. The petitioner threatened Jayanti of dire consequences when she interrogated him over the issue. On the basis of said FIR, Tehatta police station case No. 108 of 1998 dated 6.8.1998 was registered. The case investigated into and ended in a charge-sheet under Section 376 of IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges and, accordingly, the trial commenced. In all, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Some documents including medical examination report, statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were admitted into evidence and marked Ex. on behalf of the prosecution. The defense although examined two witnesses, no document was filed on behalf of the defense in course of trial. The learned Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, found the petitioner guilty of committing an offence of attempting to commit rape on Jolly Biswas and convicted him under Sections 376/511 of IPC. He was sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of L 5000/- also. The judgement of conviction and order of sentence were challenged by the convict/ petitioner in an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Nadia by the impugned judgement and order. The petitioner has come up with this application for revision challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the said order passed by the learned Appellate Court on the following grounds : i) that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper and true perspective; ii) that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court erred in coming to a conclusion that an attempt was made by the petitioner to commit rape on victim Jolly because according to the evidence of the prosecution under garments of Jolly was even not removed by the petitioner while making such attempt; iii) that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court failed to consider that there was delay in lodging the FIR and sending the FIR to Court by the police station and consequence thereto; iv) that the learned Appellate Court failed to take note of the fact that the charge framed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court was faulty; v) that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court did not consider the defense witnesses at all for no reason whatsoever; vi) that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court erred in believing the statement of prosecutrix which was found uncorroborated and not trustworthy; vii) that the judgement and order impugned, being otherwise bad in law, are liable to be set aside;;