Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.08.2012 and 29.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 5th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. II (October) 2010, the appellant, by preferring this appeal, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment mainly on the grounds that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and settled position of law.
(2.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the impugned judgment is quite unimpeachable and it does not warrant any interference.
(3.) For the sake of convenience and effective adjudication, factual scenario of the case is required to be revisited. The victim was a worker of a weaver s workshop and with a view to earning more money she had been residing in the house of her employer. The accused appellant is also an employee of the said workshop. Off and on the accused/appellant used to give her indecent proposal but the victim refused. In one night while the complainant/victim was sleeping she felt that somebody was rubbing her breast. The victim protested. The accused then showed a knife and under a threat committed rape upon her forcibly. Thereafter the accused used to commit rape upon her off and on. When she allegedly became pregnant due to such sexual intercourse, she disclosed it to her employer first and thereafter she had disclosed it to her parents and others. Airing out her such grievances, she had lodged a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and set the law into motion.;