- (1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 26.04.2010 and 28.04.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mathabhanga, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2009 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 2(5) of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
(2.) The factual aspects of the case, in short, is stated below: On 20.07.2006, Sukumar Barman lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, alleging therein that on 30.06.2006, Jhantu Barman, (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), came to his house and told that his family members had gone to the house of his near relatives and that he needed help in the matter of cooking food, and, as such, he proposed his wife to send Suniti Barman, the daughter of the de facto complainant, to his house for the purpose of cooking food. On his request, Suniti was sent to the house of the appellant for the purpose of preparing food. Suniti cooked food for the appellant and after preparation of food, she served it to the appellant and she herself also had taken food. Thereafter, finishing the domestic work, she sought for permission of the appellant for returning back home at about 12.00/1.00 P.M. But, the appellant told her to sit in his room and enjoy songs from radio.
(3.) He then turned on the switch of the radio and at that point of time to fulfil his lust, the appellant took Suniti in his arms and started to give her kiss. Thereafter, the appellant set his hands into the private parts of Suniti and laid her on the bed forcibly to have sex with her. Finding no other alternative, Suniti started screaming and somehow managed to flee from the house of the appellant.;