Kanchan Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 24.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mal, District - Jalpaiguri in Session case no. 91 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellant for committing offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/ -. On 19.8.2007 Sabada Begum, aged about 15 years lodged one F.I.R. in Mal police station of District Jalpaiguri stating therein that the appellant Md. Mokbehhar Rahaman had established physical relation with her since last 3 years alluring her to marry and as a result, she became pregnant for 3 months. Mokbehhar Rahaman not only declined to marry her but suggested her to go for abortion to which she did not agree out of fear of death.
(2.) ON the basis of said F.I.R., Mal police station case no. 181 of 2007 was registered against the appellant. The prosecutrix were examined by Doctor and found that she was pregnant. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded in course of investigation. she gave birth of a female baby on 27.2.2008. On conclusion of investigation, the I.O. of the case filed charge -sheet under Section 376 IPC against the appellant. Charge under Section 493 and 376 was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. As a result, the trial commenced. In course of trial, 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The F.I.R., Potency report, medical report, sketch map of the P.O., seizure list and school transfer certificate of the prosecutrix were admitted into evidence and marked exhibit on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant in the trial. The learned Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record found that the appellant committed the offence under Section 376 of IPC and accordingly recorded his conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal. The judgement impugned has been assailed in this appeal on the following grounds. i) that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in true and proper perspective; ii) that the learned Court failed to take into consideration that there was discrepancy and conflict in the evidence of prosecution witnesses on material points; iii) that the learned Court erred in not considering the different versions of the prosecutrix at the time of lodging F.I.R. and at the time of examination in Court; iv) that the learned Court failed to appreciate that there was inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that the conduct of the prosecutrix was abnormal and unnatural; v) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the fact that there was no forceful cohabitation between the prosecutrix and the appellant and that the entire incident, if any was because of the love affairs between them with the consent of the Prosecutrix who on becoming major and pregnant only had taken shelter of law; vi) that the incident allegedly taken place in the cinema hall was neither believable nor acceptable; vii) that the learned Court was oblivious of the fact that the prosecutrix developed the case stage by stage and what She stated in the F.I.R. was not supported by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not also corroborated while she was examined in Court; viii) that the learned Court failed to determine that the prosecutrix was a major when the alleged incident had taken place in the cinema hall which caused her pregnancy and that was done with her full consent.
(3.) MR . Chatterjee, Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that there are number of discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix on material points which, according to him, made her statement not trustworthy at all . He contended that in the F.I.R. She has not stated anything about the fact allegedly taken place one year prior to filing of the F.I.R. and the incident took place in the cinema hall. She did not also mention in the F.I.R. that any such incident about one year ago took place on the 1st floor of her house in absence of any inmates. She did not also mention in the F.I.R. that the appellant told her not to disclose the incident (s) to anybody.;