Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th June, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Barasat North 24 Parganas in Sessions Case No. 12(01)/2010 [Sessions Trial No. 06(01)/2012] convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months.
(2.) The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant that on the eighth day of Falgun the victim had gone to the house of one Taslima bibi. When Taslima went to the bathroom, the appellant caught hold the victim and by showing a knife forcibly raped her. Her wearing apparels were also torn. Thereafter, the appellant ravished the victim on a number of times when her mother was not at her residence. As a result the victim became pregnant. When the victim confronted the appellant, he promised to marry her. One occasion when the appellant was having sexual intercourse with the victim, mother of the victim (P.W.1) came to the house. The victim narrated the aforesaid facts to her and when her mother approached the appellant, the latter refused to marry. Under such circumstances, P.W.1 was constrained to lodge FIR with the police resulting in registration of Deganga Police Station Case No. 228 of 2009 dated 6.7.2009 under Sections 417/376 IPC against the appellant. In conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Barasat, North 24 Pgs for trial and disposal. Charges were framed under Sections 417/376 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It is pertinent to note that in the meantime the victim P.W 2 had given birth to a minor girl. On the prayer of the appellant, DNA examination of the appellant and minor girl was conducted. DNA report confirmed that the appellant was the father of the minor child. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 12th June, 2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
(3.) Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the age of the victim has not been proved beyond doubt. He also submits that the alleged birth certificate of the victim has not been proved in accordance with law. He further submits that version of P.W. 1, mother of the victim relating to the age of the victim does not corroborate the birth certificate which disclose a lower age. No ossification test was conducted. Taslima Bibi in whose house the first incident occurred has not been examined. Evidence of P.W.2 with regard to the forcible intercourse is patently absurd. She did not complain of forcible intercourse upon her to anyone. It is most strange how the appellant entered the house without the assistance of the victim when the house was locked from outside and the key was left with the victim. The allegation of forcible rape is, therefore, a myth and ought not to be believed. Accordingly, he prayed for acquittal of the appellant.;