CRL Aj 47+19+R
CRL Aj 47+19+R
Versus
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 07.07.2020
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO
J UDGEMENT& O RDER
(Arindam Lodh, J)
6(six) months. It was directed that both the sentences shall run
concurrently.
about 8 years and was a student of class-II, was waiting for the
to go to her school, and at that time she went to the shop of the
seeing the victim called her inside his shop and made her to sit on
his lap, and thereafter, he put his hand into her vagina. At that
and the learned Special Judge after taking cognizance had framed
claimed to be tried.
as afore-stated.
except the girl (PW 2) herself, who has only deposed in course of
trial that the accused took her on his lap and put his hand on her
detected on the body of the victim, but, the hymen was torn, bleed
Page 6 of 19
injuries on her private parts due to sexual assault, she would have
felt pain and there must be bleeding, but, during the whole day,
she did not state to anyone about any pain or bleeding. Learned
counsel further argued that the entire story of rape is false and the
11. Per contra, Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP. relying on the
girl and also on the basis of the evidence of the P.W.9, i.e., Dr.
further argued that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
any shadow of doubt, and the learned Special Judge has not
above.
stated that the victim was his younger daughter and she was 8
going to sleep divulged to his wife that on that day while she went
his shop and made her sit on his lap and put his hand into her
vagina. After that she went to school and attended her private
tutor. PW1 further stated that he discussed the incident with some
questions put by the defence lawyer has been denied by the PW1.
months back, on her way to school, she went to the shop of Naru
kaka to purchase a packet of chips and Naru kaka took her on his
Page 8 of 19
lap and put his hand on her private parts. Thereafter, she went to
school. PW2 further stated that she narrated the whole incident to
her mother. Thereafter, a case was lodged and she was produced
before a Doctor.
the date of the incident she reached home at around 10.30 a.m.
After that her mother used to take care of her throughout the day.
appellant did not outrage her modesty on that date and time.
victim on way to her school went to the shop of the accused and
the accused took her on his lap and put his hand on her vagina.
PW3 further deposed that the victim divulged the fact at night
while she was going to sleep. After that she informed the matter to
her husband. PW3 further deposed that her husband on that night
day, her husband lodged a case and her statement was recorded
by a Magistrate at Bishalgarh.
Page 9 of 19
informed him that while the victim went to the shop of Narayan
chocolates to the victim-girl and put his hand on the private part of
inquired the victim and she told him that when she went to the
the I.O that in the night of 07.12.2015 Radhacharan called him and
narrated the whole incident that when the victim went to the shop
of the accused, the accused put his hand in the vagina of the
victim.
oath stated that on the previous day in the morning her daughter,
accused for purchasing chips and the accused took her daughter
inside the shop and on alluring to give a chocolate made her to sit
on his lap and thereafter touched her vagina. At night, the victim
statement of the victim-girl. The victim was 8 years old and PW6
put her three questions, i.e. about her school, the colour of sun
and about her brother and sister, which she answered correctly
the victim stated that while she went to the shop of the accused,
he took her inside the shop and gave her chocolate and made her
that some people were coming, the accused had left her.
sweet shop at Kanania Bazar and besides his shop there was the
one year back one day when he was in his shop he heard from the
local people of the market that Narayan Debnath ill behaved with a
minor tribal girl in his shop. PW8 identified the accused in the dock.
to open the shop in the early morning and the vendors also used to
come in the market in the morning time prior to 7.00 a.m. and he
also deposed that in the report he also mentioned that “In the
private parts there was redness and swelling on vulva region and
touch”. PW9, further deposed that “The age of torn was 1/2 days
fresh”.
the dental surgeon the age of the victim is above 6 years and the
normal condition. PW9 further deposed that the victim girl must
have suffered pain on her private parts just after the occurrence
of the victim and also examined the parents of the victim. PW10
the hand-sketch map, also seized the birth certificate of the victim-
in the case dairy did not mention any note in regard to the
PW5 did not state in his 161 statement that in the night of
(PW3) and also the medical report of the victim (Exbt. 7/1) along
it is found she had categorically stated that she went to the shop of
appellant made her to sit on his lap and thereafter put his hand on
the shop of the accused. It is not the case of the appellant that no
Page 14 of 19
the version of the victim-girl that on her way to school the accused
appellant offered two chocolates to the victim and made her to sit
on his lap and put his hand on her vagina. Though PW3 is not an
eyewitness, but, she is the first person to whom the girl divulged
the whole incident as she is the mother of the victim and this
to accept the statements of the victim girl with more credence. The
victim was a girl of eight years at the time of incident who was not
person, who is a grown up man and because of this she did not tell
that too at that cost of staking the future welfare of her own 8
reported in AIR 2005 SC 2327, the Apex court held that if the
observed as follows:
of the IPC can be based on the sole testimony of the rape victim. A
that the testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless
found to be reliable.
penetration. PW9 further stated that the age of torn was 1/2 days
fresh. The prosecutrix being a girl aged about 8 years at that time
and her hymen, having been found torn, when she was examined
the credibility of the statement of the victim girl (PW 2) that the
reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379(para 7), the Apex Court held that:
Page 17 of 19
30. In the case in hand, it has come to the fore that the
accused appellant has inserted his finger in and around the private
parts of the girl and falls within the purview of definition of Section
record, it can safely be opined that the testimony of the girl finds
full corroboration not only from the injuries, including torn vagina
found on her person when she was examined in the hospital but
Page 19 of 19
scope to draw any other inference other than the guilt of the
was justified in holding that the prosecution had been able to prove
and affirmed.
dismissed.
Suhanjit