Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Uday Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) This application is directed against the judgment dated 22.01.2001 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 30 of 1995 whereby and where under the opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.
(3.) It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the informant - P.W. 4 specifically supported the manner of occurrence and the commission of rape upon her by the respondent no. 2. It has been stated that although the Doctor and the Investigating Officer were not examined, but that itself would not prejudice the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence given by the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submits that evidence of P.W. 4 is consistent with her statement initially recorded in the FIR. Learned counsel therefore submits that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W. 4 while acquitting the respondent no. 2 for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C.;