- (1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th March 1999 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Midnapore in Sessions Trial No. XXVI of July 1998 in connection with Belda P.S. Case No. 133 of 1996 dated 15th November 1996 by which the learned Trial Court convicted the sole accused Debendra Paikar of offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 366 and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were however directed to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts and circumstances of the prosecution case briefly stated are as follows: The prosecutrix, a student of class X, was abducted on 8th November 1996 by her private tutor the accused herein, who also is a neighbour, while she was returning home from her coaching centre. She was taken to various places including the matrimonial home of the married sister of the accused whereat she was raped. She was taken from there to the house of another acquaintance of the accused where again she was raped. Both the victim and the accused were brought back to the village by one Tapas but the victim was not restored to the custody of her parents. She was confined at some place in the village particulars whereof are not fully available except that she was confined for some time in the house of Tapas Jana the saviour. After her final release she was kept by her parents in the house of her brother-in-law for safety as would appear from suggestions given to the P.W. 2. By this time an FIR had already been lodged. A salish was held. She was pressurised to marry the accused but she did not agree. She was also presurrised to withdraw the case as a condition precedent to her liberty which also she refused to do. From the order sheet of the lower Court it appears that the victim, after she was produced before the learned Magistrate, was asked whether she would like to marry the accused to which her reply was in the negative. The learned Magistrate in the circumstances directed that her statement should be recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was done on 3rd March 1997.
(3.) Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal submitted that the victim was deeply in love with the accused and that precisely was the reason why she eloped with him. He submitted that the allegation as regards abduction is baseless. He in support of his submission relied on exhibit "A" a letter written by the victim.;