Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2014 passed by learned Special cum Additional Sessions Judge, Coochbihar in Sessions Case No.364/2013 (Sessions Trial No.22(9)2012 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for five months more for commission of offence punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 IPC, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years more, both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) Prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is to the effect that the PW 8, wife of late Jatin Barman, is the victim in the instant case. Her husband had expired about two weeks prior to the commission of the offence. The appellant was a friend of her husband and used to regularly visit her house. On 03.05.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. while she was cooking in the kitchen and other family members had gone to the adjacent house to watch television, the appellant suddenly entered her house and accosted her from behind. After gagging her mouth he dragged her to the bedroom and committed rape on her. The victim caught hold of the wearing apparel of the appellant and cried out. On hearing her hue and cry neighbours as well as her family members arrived at the place of occurrence. The appellant was caught red handed and he confessed his guilt to the witnesses. A salishi was supposed to be held on the next morning but the appellant fled away. Subsequently, first information report being Dinhata P.S. Case No.269/12 dated 08.05.2012 under Section 448/376/506 IPC was registered for investigation. In completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and he was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the trial Court for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Section 448/376/506 IPC against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined twelve witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.
(3.) On the last occasion i.e.13.06.2017 in absence of Mr. Sarwar Jahan, learned Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Apalak Basu, learned Advocate was requested to assist the Court as amicus curiae. However, today the learned Advocate for the appellant is present. He along with amicus curiae have been heard at length.;