Asha Arora, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 30th May, 2016 and 31st May, 2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - 1, Raiganj in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2009 arising out of Sessions Case No. 245 of 2008 whereby the accused/appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and he was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal may be summarised as follows : On 17.06.2004 at 14.10 hrs. one Ram Gopal Barman lodged a written complaint at Raiganj P.S. alleging that on 14.06.2004 at about 17.30 hrs. when his daughter Sufala Barman was returning home from her maternal uncle's house, on the way the accused/appellant took her on his bicycle and left her near the shop of Bhabesh Barman whereafter she was not traceable. On the following day in the morning at about 6.45 A.M. Sufala was found lying unconscious on the bank of Bogahar pond. On being informed about this fact, the defacto complainant brought his daughter home wherefrom she was taken to Raiganj District Hospital for medical treatment. It is further alleged that the accused would give indecent proposals to Sufala and would harass her in various ways. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, Raiganj P.S. Case No. 151 dated 17.06.2004 was initiated under Sections 342/326 I.P.C. Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge sheet under Sections 342/323 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant. In course of trial, the evidence of the victim revealed material for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant so the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj in view of Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) The trial court framed charge under Sections 326 and 376 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant who pleaded not guilty to the indictment in consequence of which trial commenced. During trial prosecution examined six witnesses namely, P.W. 1 who is the victim, P.W. 2 is a co-villager and a member of the local panchayat. He is also related to the victim. P.W. 3 is another relative of the victim. The evidence of both these witnesses is hearsay. P.W. 4 is the scribe of the F.I.R. He has no personal knowledge regarding the incident. P.W. 5 is the medical officer who examined the victim on the following day that is, on 15.06.2004. This witness has testified regarding the fact that on 15.06.2004 Sufala Barman was admitted under him and on examination he found that the abdomen of the patient was soft and she complained of pain in her lower abdomen. According to P.W. 5 the patient was discharged on 17.06.2004. P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer. Apart from the witnesses referred, prosecution relied upon some documents which have been tendered in evidence and marked as exhibits.;