Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rabindranath Hudait @ Rabi vs The State Of West Bengal on 16 December, 2017
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi, Rajarshi Bharadwaj
1
16
SB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj
C.R.A. 577 of 2008
RABINDRANATH HUDAIT @ RABI
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Amicus Curiae : Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, Advocate
Mr. Navanil De, Advocate
For the State : Mr. N. Ahmed, Advocate
Mr. P. Bose, Advocate
Heard on : December, 16, 2017
Judgement on : December, 16, 2017
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :
The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under section 366/342/392/307/376 I.P.C. read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year for the commission of offence punishable under section 366 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months for the commission of offence punishable under section 376 read with section 511 of Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer further R.I. for six months for the commission of offence punishable under section 392 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month for the commission of offence punishable under section 342 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000 in default to suffer further R.I. for one year for the commission of 2 offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences run concurrently.
The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 11.12.2005 at about 6.25 hours, P.W. 4 the victim girl was aged about eight years and had gone out of her house to buy lozenges from a nearby shop. But she did not return. Her father, P.W. 5 started searching at probable places and as he could not her trace out, he lodged a missing diary at Burtola P.S. on the same day at 18.30 hours. On 14.12.05 in the morning at about 08.00 AM the victim was recovered from the bushes at the back yard of premises No. 4, Beadon Street, Calcutta - 6 with injuries on her person. She was immediately rushed to R.G. Kar Hospital for preliminary medical treatment. On her examination at the hospital, no vaginal injuries were detected. She also had head injuries. She was referred to SSKM Hospital. On 16.12.2005 after she recovered, her statement was recorded and she disclosed that on 11.12.2005 while she returning home after purchasing Lozenges, the appellant asked her to help him to hold the gate of his house at 3, Umesh Dutta Lane and when she went to help him he dragged her inside his house and kept her inside a room in the house, robbed her of her gold ear ring, assaulted her severely on various parts of the body and attempted to rape her. On the basis of the her statement, Burtola P.S. Case No. 204 dated 16.12.2005 was registered for investigation and the appellant was arrested and pursuant to his statement a gold ear ring was recovered along with other articles from his dwelling room. He made a confessional statement before the learned Magistrate under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure and charge sheet was filed against him. Charges were framed against the appellant. In the course of trial, prosecution examined twenty- six witnesses. The plea of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
Nobody appears on the bahlf of the appellant. Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir with Mr. Navanil De, learned advocates are requested to appear as amicus curiae in the matter. Mr. Kabir argues that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R.. It is further submitted that the confessional statement was recorded through inducement and therefore, ought to be discarded. Hence the appellant is liable to be acquitted.
3
Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appears on behalf of the State and submits that the version of the victim, P.W. 4 is corroborated by other witnesses including P.W. 9 and the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the appellant. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
P.W. 4 is a minor girl who was examined in court after putting preliminary questions to her to test her capacity to depose. She has graphically described the incidents of kidnapping, physical assault, attempt to rape and theft committed by the appellant. She also stated that due such assault she became unconscious. When she regained conscious she found herself in the hospital. She deposed that she made statement to the police officer in the hospital and she signed the statement which was treated as F.I.R. as Exbt. 9. The evidence of the due child witnesses is corroborated by P.W. 9 who had seen the appellant with the victim shortly before the incident. The allegation of theft of the gold ear rings of the victim is proved by the recovery of the stolen article from the possession of the appellant in the presence of the independent witnesses P.W. 12 and P.W. 13. The victim was treated in the hospital by P.Ws. 14 & 15.
P.W. 15 deposed that he was a Professor of Neuro Surgery Department at Bangoor Institute of Neuroscience and Psychiatry, Calcutta. He treated the victim on 14.12.2005 at S.S.K. M. Hospital. She was admitted with head injury and other multiple injuries. She was discharged on 31.12.2005. He proved the bed head ticket as Exbt. 7 collectively. P.W. 14 corroborated the evidence of P.W. 15.
P.W. 16 is an expert who gave opinion that the injuries on the victim had resulted from scuffle or assault with hard blunt weapon or object with moderate weight. The injury over forehead was grievous in nature.
The aforesaid medical evidence wholly corroborates the ocular version of the victim. Hence, even if discard the confessional statement of the appellant, there is ample evidence on record to establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.
The appeal is dismissed.
4The period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentences imposed upon him in terms of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Kabir as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal.
Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree, (Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)