Prompt lodging of First Information Report cannot always be expected in cases of offences under Sections 376 or 354 of the Penal Code

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 20th May 2020

Bibhas Kuti vs. The State of West Bengal 

Appeal made against Judgment and order made against the appellant under section 354 of Indian penal code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two years and fine of Rupees 1000.

Summary:

When the informant/Victim was serving food to her cattle, the appellant, finding her alone, undressed her and gagged her mouth, threw her on the floor and tried to ravish her. After trying heard, the victim/informant could somehow extricate herself from the clutches of the appellant and fled away. On the next morning this news spread amongst the neighbours. Consequently, the appellant attacked the informant’s house and thrashed her with fists, blows and kicks. He even took away the earring of the victim that had fallen off in the process.

The accused/appellant then gave the earring to the accused. 

After getting information about the altercation, the petitioner’s brother came. But, the accused surrounded them with axes in their hands. The accused injured the hand of the brother in the process. As a result of the damage caused by the accused, the informant suffered a loss of about Rs. 15,000/-. Earlier also the accused, who happened to the informant’s brother-in-law, gave her indecent proposal. He tortured her on several occasions. The issue has not been taken into serious issue as it would lead to prestige issue to the in laws family of the Victim. The police did not take any steps. The informant was constrained to approach a Court of law.

It is submitted before the court that a prompt lodging of First Information Report cannot always be expected in cases of offences under Sections 376 or 354 of the Penal Code, especially when the alleged offence takes place in a remote village and it is accepted by the appellant’s side. But a delay of 106 days in filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code by the purported victim evokes a suspicion. 106 days in filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code by the purported victim evokes a suspicion.

Though there is a mention about lodging of other cases against the in- laws, the informant could not bring out any material to show that she had earlier told others or filed complaints in respect of such alleged previous sexual misconduct by the accused/appellant.

The evidence adduced by the victim as regards the incidents is not quite convincing, especially when juxtaposed with the previous animosity between the parties and the inordinate delay in lodging of the First Information Report.

Decision:

The court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the appellant is entitled to a benefit of doubt and court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The appellant is discharged from the bail bonds.