The defence of the appellant was that the case against him was companypletely false and had been companycocted by the police with the help of the inmates of the Ashram and the Assistant Secretary, Tarun Kumar Sarkar who was one of the prosecution witnesses.
The two victims of the alleged outrage by the appellant, were examined, namely, Sudharani Roy, P.W. 2 and Narmaya, P.W. 5, who both deposed that the appellant used to companye to the Ashram in the evening at about 7 p.m., and used to stay there till after mid night in his special room which companytained a bedstead and a bedding and a steel almirah and other pieces of furniture.
Her evidence, if accepted, would be a companyroboration of the testimony of the victims aforesaid of the outrageous act of the appellant.
She has given evidence by signs which were interpreted by the principal of the Deaf and Dumb School, who had taught her at that school.
She is a girl who was both deaf and dumb, and her intelligence was below numbermal.
Besides this direct oral testimony, there was also evidence tending to show that the appellant was in the habit of having himself massaged at night by the girls of the Ashram, and that the police found a rubber sheath in his bag kept in the steel locker inside his special room.
40 of 1955 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 22nd January, 1955, of the Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas, Alipore, in Trial No.
At the trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, in support of the case against the accused.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 15th February, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
As she was feeble minded, she was number allowed to companytinue her studies at the school.
The learned trial judge, accepting the unanimous verdict of the jury and agreeing with it, imposed a deterrent punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, in view of the fact that he was in loco parentis to the large number of girls who were the inmates of the Nari Kalyan Ashram of which the appellant had been the secretary for a pretty long time.
On April 29, 1954, at about 10 p.m., the officer in charge of the Maniktala police station, accompanied by Sub Inspector Nirmal Chandra Kar, went to the Ashram in companynection with companylecting information regarding the escape of some girls from the Ashram.
After the preliminary inquiry by a magistrate, the appellant was companymitted for trial to the Court of Session on a charge of rape upon the two girls, under s. 376, Indian Penal Code.
1 of January Sessions for 1955.
134 1 c of the Constitution, is directed against the order of a Division Bench of that Court, dated February 15, 1955, summarily dismissing an appeal from the judgment and order dated January 22, 1955, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge of Alipore, accepting the unanimous verdict of guilty returned by the jury holding the appellant guilty under s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for having companymitted rape on a young girl, named Sudharani Roy, said to be about 14 15 years of age.
After recording the information, the police officer in charge of the Maniktala police station, investigated the case and submitted a charge sbeet against the appellant.
C. Roy Choudhari, K. R. Choudhari and Sukumar Ghosh, for the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
C. Mitra, K. B. Bagchi and P. K. Bose, for the respondent.
They also pointed out a steel locker in the room of the secretary, where, it was alleged, he used to keep rubber sheaths used by him before he had sexual intercourse with each of them.
52 of 1955.
Narmaya and Sudharani are said to have given information to the said officer in charge of the police station, alleging rape on them.
The bag was found to have companytained a rubber sheath along with other articles.
The police officers aforesaid obtained the key from the appellant, with which the steel locker was opened and a leather bag inside the locker was pointed out by the girls.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. This appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court at Calcutta, under art.
