She identified her wearing apparels, which were seized by the Police.
She further deposed that the accused forcibly caught her and put napkin inside her mouth and companymitted sexual intercourse against her will and companysent.
As many as 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case, including the prosecuterix, her father and mother.
However, it was found that the other accused Naki Mollick was a juvenile and his trial, therefore, was separated.
The accused companymitted rape on the prosecuterix several times forcibly and had also falsely assured to marry her.
Her wearing apparels were also torn.
The prosecution further alleged that Naki Mollick abetted the companymission of the offence and both the accused persons threatened to kill her.
Salish a meeting for resolving the dispute was held in the Village on 24.2.2003, wherein, it was decided that the accused should marry the prosecuterix, however, Zindar Ali refused to marry the prosecuterix.
The prosecuterix was examined as PW 1 and deposed that the accused was after her, requesting her to marry him, so also his friend, the other accused also used to tell her that the accused wanted to marry her.
As per the prosecution, accused Zindar Ali SK was trying to marry with prosecuterix Chandmoni Khatoon with the help of Naki Mollick.
Ultimately, a Chargesheet was submitted for offences under Sections 376, 417 and 120 B of IPC.
However, the accused refused to marry the companyplainant prosecuterix and, therefore, the prosecuterix informed the incident to her family members and neighbours.
Prosecuterix was working as a weaver and on the day of incident, when she was returning from her work, the accused caught her, taking advantage of the dark and companymitted rape on her.
As per the prosecution case, there was another accused Naki Mollick in the matter, against whom the Chargesheet was submitted, but, he being a juvenile, was sent to the Juvenile Court for facing trial.
Some documents were also filed, including the medical reports, age reports etc.
Doctors were also examined and ultimately, the accused abjured the guilt and claimed that he had been falsely implicated, as he had refused to marry the prosecuterix.
She deposed that due to fear of her life, she did number disclose the incident of rape to anybody, however, after 2/3 days of incident, when the accused refused to marry her, she came home and reported the incident to her parents.
She, however, refused to oblige.
She also identified the accused.
There is numbereffective Cross Examination to this witness.
She also further deposed that the accused had threatened her and also raped her subsequently for 2 or 3 days.
As per her deposition, a Salish was held, where, the accused declined to abide by the decision taken in that meeting of about his marrying the prosecuterix.
One question was asked about her clinical and physical examination.
As against this, an appeal came to be filed before the High Court, however, the High Court has dismissed the appeal and that is how, the matter has companye before us.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of companyviction passed by the Calcutta High Court, whereby, the appeal filed by the accused Appellant, was dismissed.
The accused was companyvicted by Fast Track, Fourth Court, Krishnagar, Nadia for an offence under Section 376 , as also an offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter for short IPC .
