R.K.BAG,J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated May 30, 2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No.1(7) of 2011 arising out of Sessions Case No.20(6) of 2011, by which the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months more for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) The backdrop of conviction and sentence of the appellant is as follows:- On February 12, 2011 at about 11 a.m. when the victim Mithu Maji was returning after taking bath in the rivulet of the village, she was dragged by the appellant towards a culvert in spite of protest and resistance by her. The appellant gagged the victim by pouring cloth in her mouth and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will. The victim is a young girl of 17 years old who was studying in the school. The appellant fled away after the incident. The victim returned to home and reported the incident to her mother and her father was absent from home at the relevant point in time. The incident was reported to the police by filing a written complaint of the victim Mithu Maji. Mejia Police Station Case No.9/2011 dated February 12, 2011 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered on the basis of written complaint of Mithu Majhi. The police investigated the said case and submitted charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court framed charge against the appellant on the allegation of committing offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. On consideration of the evidence adduced before the trial court, the appellant was found guilty for committing offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months more. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
(3.) Mrs. Anusua Sinha, learned counsel appointed as amicus curiae to represent the appellant in this appeal, contends that the victim attained the age of consent for sexual intercourse. By referring to the evidence of the victim girl and the evidence of the doctor who examined the victim, Mrs. Sinha submits that there is glaring inconsistency in the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses with regard to the injuries sustained by the victim at the time of the incident. She has also referred to the opinion of the doctor and submitted that there was no evidence of forceful sexual intercourse of the victim and that the injuries found on the face of the victim might have been self-inflicted. According to Mrs. Sinha, the defence case of implication of the appellant in this criminal case on false allegation as the appellant contracted marriage with another lady after having an affair with the victim, cannot be ruled out due to the above lacunae and inconsistency in the evidence adduced by the prosecution.;