Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) The hearing stems from an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Id. Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Sessions Case No. 8(11) of 1999 [Sessions Trial No. 1(4) of 2000] on 29.03.2003.
(2.) Shortly put, the prosecution case is that on 03.03.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. the accused who is a neighbour of the defacto complainant (P.W.1), on inducing with a promise of offering toys committed rape in his house upon the complainant's five years old daughter Puja (P.W.2) who after coming back to house narrated the incident and complained of severe pain in her private parts. When the matter was reported to the parents and elder brother of the accused, they threatened the complainant and neighbourers with dire consequences and asked them to suppress the matter. Hence, the accused was charged under section 376 IPC.
(3.) The defence case, as suggested to P Ws., as contended by the accused during his examination under section 313 Cr. PC and as deposed by D Ws. 1 to 3, is that on that date in the morning while the accused was.away in the market, Puja went to their house and during her play with Shilpi, niece of the accused, they pushed tamarind seeds into each others vaginas and as the said seeds could not be brought out an altercation took place between the members of both families. The complainant being a doctor could remove the seed from the private of his daughter while Papiya @ Shilpi was removed to nursing home of Dr. Jagannath Ganguly who removed the seed. Due to long standing hitch with the family of the accused, the present case has been filed at the instance of Nemai Dhabal (P.W.5) and others, for teaching a good lesson to the family of the accused.;