The Single Bench of Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Rabi Saha @ Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal expounded that asking the victim to remove her pant and in defiance of the Appellant himself removing justifiably signifies an attempt to commit the offence of rape.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that a complaint was filed by the minor victim’s mother in which she stated that the Opposite Party tried to rape her minor daughter. The Opposite Party provided ice cream to the minor and by luring her took her to the corner where he removed the minor’s pants, put his hand on her vagina, and tried to rape her. The minor started shouting and hence, many people rushed and beat the Opposite Party.
Based on the complaint, the charges were framed against the Opposite Party under section 376/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he was convicted. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was submitted that no test identification parade was conducted to identify the Appellant. Further, the doctor who had examined the victim's private parts did not give a deposition. The victim's clothes were not ceased. Hence, it was contended that the Prosecution failed to establish its case.
Contentions of the State:
It was submitted that as per the facts of the case, the elements of the offence under Section 376/511 were present. Furthermore, the intention to commit the offence was also proved by the Prosecution.
Observation of the Court:
It was observed that the Appellant had no justification for giving the Minor victim an ice cream other than to fulfil his ulterior desire for sexual gratification. Furthermore, luring the victim girl with ice cream was preparatory in nature. It was noted that by asking the victim to remove her pants and further, removing them himself, the Appellant attempted to commit the offence of rape as there could be no other reason for doing so.
It was also remarked that asking the minor child to take down her pants and reclining her against her will does not constitute pampering or mollycoddling the child. The parties did not have a tense relationship, eliminating the possibility of a false indictment.
The Decision of the Court:
Based on the above-mentioned findings, the Hon’ble High Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction.
Case Title: Rabi Saha @ Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal
Case No: C.R.A. 128 of 2009
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Advocate for the State: Adv. Mr. Aivishek Sinha
Advocate for the Amicus Curiae: Adv. Mr. Pritam Ray
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :