- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2005 and 17th January, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Serial No. 14/2004 arising out of Suti P.S. Case No. 78/2000 dated 16th July, 2000 thereby convicting the appellant, Dipak Kumar Das for committing an offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one year more. The appellant has challenged the judgment impugned on the following grounds: (1) that the learned Trial Court failed to apply judicial mind and, as a consequence, there was fragrant violation of the principle of natural justice; (2) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper and true perspective; (3) that the learned Trial Court believed the testimonies of child witness and her close relations who were interested in the prosecution and recorded conviction on the basis of their testimonies incorrectly; (4) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the victim was never produced before the doctor for medical examination; (5) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no eye witness of the alleged incident; (6) that the learned Trial Court relied on inadmissible evidence and recorded conviction basing on uncorroborated and inconsistent testimonies of the witnesses; (7) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the statement made by the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and statement made by her in Court as P.W. 3 were not consistent and corroborating to each other; (8) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the delay in lodging the First Information Report and sending the First Information Report by police promptly to the nearest Magistrate amounting to gross violation of law; (9) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that delay in lodging First Information Report and inordinate delay in presenting the First Information Report by the police to the nearest Magistrate had occasioned exaggeration, improvement and embellishment of the prosecution case; (10) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was political rivalry between the appellant and the father of the victim; and (11) that the judgment and sentence being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside.
(2.) The prosecution case before the learned Trial Court, in short, is that on 16.07.2000 at about 18.25 hours one Tilak Das, father of Tannita Das @ Riya Das, lodged one First Information Report with Suti Police Station alleging therein that he came to know from his daughter, Tannita, that about two months prior to the date of lodging of the First Information Report, Dipak Das attempted to commit rape on Tannita in his maternal uncle s house. He had shown his male organ to Tannita and also rubbed his male organ on her panty. Tannita asked Dipak Das not to do so, but he did not refrain himself from doing so. He forcibly caught hold of Tannita and then committed sexual torture on her. He kissed Tannita and sucked her mouth by placing his mouth on her mouth. On 09.07.2000, at about 8 P.M. he also did similar thing in the house of Tilak Das.
(3.) Dipak Das threatened her of dire consequence in case of disclosure of the fact and, as such, Tannita did not disclose anyone before 11.07.2000. Tilak Das, being learnt the incidents became perplexed and started thinking as to what would be his next course of action. Thinking over the matter, ultimately, he went to the Suti Police Station and lodged First Information Report on 16.07.2000.;