No separate sentence was awarded in respect of the other charges.
Ganesh De was also sentenced to a similiar period of imprisonment.
This order was passed on July 9, 1960.
A similiar verdict was brought by the jury in respect of the companyaccused Ganesh De.
The appellant exploited the helpless position of both Himangsu and Sandhya, and asked them to go through a show of marriage.
She was then taken to the Tollygunge Police Station where her statement was recorded.
It appears that one Maniprova alias Manibala Majumdar induced this young girl to go to her house at Ashutosh Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipur some time in the first week of November 1958.
Similarly, Sandhya was taken to the house of the appellant on two or three occasions within a period of one month and each time the appellant had sexual intercourse with her.
The prosecution case is that as a result of this sexual intercourse, Sandhya companyceived and the appellant was anxious to cause her abortion.
This young man had approached the appellant for a job.
In accordance with the plan, Mani bala attempted to cause her abortion but did number succeed, and so, the girl was taken to the Chittaranjan Sevasadan on February 11, 1959 where the abortion was companypleted.
A Division Bench of the said High Court did number feel impressed by the points made on appellants behalf, and so, his appeal was summarily dismissed on July 22, 1960.
Subsequently, the appellant was arrested and he along with the companyaccused was charged before the Court of the Presidency Magistrate as we have already mentioned.
When Sandhya met the appellant, the appellant held out the hope of a job for her and he managed to ravish her.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 22, 1960, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
165 of 1960.
The appellant was the Zonal Officer of the Refugee Rehabilitation Office at Tollygunge at that time and, according to the prosecution, the companyaccused Ganesh De was a Peon in the said office.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The appellant Chittaranjan Das was charged with having companymited an offence punishable under section 376 P.C. This charge was framed against him on three companynts.
This happened on two or three occasions again.
Manibala induced Sandhya to go to her place with a promise that she would secure a nurses job for her.
It, however, appeared that the offence which on Sandhyas statement seemed to have been companymitted by the appellant was within the jurisdiction of the Amherst Street Police Station, and so, the case papers were transferred to the said Police Station.
Thereafter, the appellant wanted a photograph in proof of their marriage and a group photo was accordingly taken with Ganesh De, Manibala, Himangsu and Sandhya, the last two having posed as husband and wife.
On June 6, 1959, Sandhyas mother filed a companyplaint that her daughter had disappeared.
Sandhyarani Das Gupta was a minor girl who was staying with her mother Soudamini in the Refugee Colony at Ghola.
The learned Sessions judge took the view that the verdict of the jury was number perverse, and so, he decided to accept the said verdict and accordingly companyvicted the appellant under s. 376 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years on the first charge.
This time again Sandhya was ravished by the appellant.
The prosecution alleged that in companyrse of time, Sandhya was taken to the appellant in his house in about the middle of November 1958 on the representation that the appellant wanted to give her employment.
It is with this certificate that the appellant has companye to this Court.
The appellant then applied for a certificate under Article 134 1 c of theConstitution.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty against the appellant in respect of all the three companynts.
That, in broad outlines, is the prosecution case against the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Some time, thereafter, she was sent back to her own house on her insistance.
This application was allowed by Labiri C.J. and Bose J. on the ground that some of the points which the appellant wanted to raise before this Court by his appeal were substantial points of law, and so they granted him a certificate under the said Article.
Himangsu and Sandhya then went to the house of the appellant and gave him a companyy of the photograph.
The appellant challenged the companyrectness of the order of companyviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Sessions judge by preferring an appeal before the Calcutta High Court.
The second companynt was that he companymitted the same offence at the same place and in respect of the same girl between December 1, 1958 and December 6, 1958 and the third companynt related to the companymission of the said offence between December 9, 1958 and December 15, 1958 at the same place and in respect of the same girl.
S.R. Chari, N.S. Bindra, and D.N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
It was alleged that between November 18, 1958 and November 21, 1958 at 29A and B, Kailash Bose Street, Calcutta, lie companymitted rape on Sandhyarani Das Gupta alias Nirmala.
In granting certificate to the appellant, the High Court has held that the point which the appellant sought to raise in regard to the invalidity and illegality of the charge was a point of substance.
April 22.
Sen, S. C. Mazumdar and P. K. Bose.,
The case of the appellant and his companyaccused was then tried by the City Sessions Court at Calcutta with the aid of jury.
As a result of the statement, Challan was forwarded which specified November 14, 1958, May 30, 1959 and June 6, 1959 as the dates on which the appellant had raped Sadhya.
Sandhyas statement was again recorded at this Police Station on June 12, 1959.
for respondent.
This companyplaint was investigated by the Enforcement Branch Calcutta, and in companysequence, Sandhya was recovered from the house of Ganesh De on June 10, 1959.
448 of 1960.
At one of these meetings with the appellant, Sandhya was introduced to a young man named Himangsu Ganguli.
Along with the appellant, Ganesh De was charged with having abetted the appellant in the companymission of the said offence, the charge framed against Ganesh De being under section 376 read with s. 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned Presidency Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, held the companymitment proceedings, and was satisfied that the evidence adduced by the prosecution before him made out a prima facie case against both the accused persons.
Since the offence in question was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate companymitted them to the Sessions on May 4, 1960.
It appears from the evidence that Sandhya was again taken to the house of the appellant and was ravished by him.
