Amit Talukdar, J. - (1.) Pursuant to a chargesheet submitted by P.W.14, Hari Sankar Pandey, the Investigating Officer of the case, the sole appellant herein was arrayed in Sessions Trial No. VIII (3)/05 before the learned Fast Track, Fourth Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, to answer the following charges: (a) That you on 23.2.03 evening on the way of the complainant at Sukpukur under F.S. Nakashipara, District Nadia committed rape on Chandmoni Khatun and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 376 of lPC. (b) That you on 23.2.2003 in the evening near the house of complainant at Sukpukur under P.S. Nakashipara, District Nadia committed rape on Chandmoni Khatun with a promise to marry her and thereafter you continued to have sexual intercourse with her with intention to cheat and then you cheated her and thereby committed offence punishable under Sec. 417 of IPC. (c) That you on or about 23.2.2003 at Sukpukur P.S. Nakasrupara, District Nadia, agree with Naki Mollick illicit connection with and Jinder Ali Sk. and that the same act was done in pursuance of the agreement and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 120B of IPC.
(2.) Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was placed on trial and the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses, of which P.W.1 is the victim girl herself, P.Ws. 6 and 11 were her parents, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 were witnesses to the salish held for settling the incident, P.W.5 was an Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police who recorded the formal FIR (Ext.2) instituted on the basis of the petition filed by P.W.1 under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.8 was a lady home guard who produced the victim girl before P.W.7, the Medical Officer of Sadar Hospital, Krishnanagar who medically examined the victim girl on 08.8.2003, P.W.9 was an N.V.F. constable who produced the appellant on 23.10.2003 before P.W.10, another doctor who was Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Krishnanagar, who found him capable to perform sexual intercourse, P.W.12 was a constable who produced the co -accused who being a juvenile was tried separately, P.W.13. was the learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) under Sec. 164 (Ext.6).
(3.) The defence was a case of false implication.;