User talk:223.238.114.171

17. As per the provision of 'Sixthly' of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code it would be rape with or without consent when the woman concerned is under sixteen years of age. As regards the age of the defacto-complainant P.W. 5 it appears that she herself has stated in her written complaint, Exhibit 3, that she is aged about sixteen years, but as per the report of the Radiologist, who examined the victim girl namely Sipra Sarkar, as P.W. 9, Exhibit 2, coupled with her X-Ray plates, material Exhibit, 1, he was of the opinion that the age of the said V.G. was considered as 16 years with allowable variation, i.e, 6 months to 2 years. In view of this evidence of P.W. 9 there can be no hesitation to hold that the said victim girl Sipra Sarkar or P.W. 5 was more than sixteen years old and she was not under sixteen years of age and as such she was matured enough to give or not to give consent to sexual intercourse with her and so she consented to sexual intercourse with her voluntarily and consequently the instant case does not come within the purview of the description 'sixthly' of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

27. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that said Sipra Sarkar is her 'nanad' and Chand Mohan Sammader had talking terms with Sipra Sarkar and she came to know from para people that Sipra was carrying for 6 months and though initially she denied the defence suggestion that Sipra had talking terms with so many persons, yet thereafter she had deposed that Sipra had talking terms with many boys of her para. In that case the probability of her promiscuous nature can not be ruled out and when there is such probability, then there is doubt also.

28. As per the evidence of P.W. 3 Sipra Sarkar is her 'named' by Village courtesy, but she does not know the accused and she does not know any incident and she was not examined by the Investigating Officer about this case and as she has not supported the prosecution case, so she has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

29. As per evidence of P.W. 4 Sipra is her 'nanad' but she knows nothing about the incident of Sipra or about any incident in between Sipra and the accused Chand Mohan Sammader and so she has also been declared hostile by the prosecution as she did not support the prosecution case.

31. P.W. 6 has stated that Sipra Sarkar is her sister-in-law and Anjan Pramanik is his wife and on being asked his wife told him that Chand Mohan has committed rape upon Sipra, but apparently his evidence is hearsay and as per his evidence he was not examined by the Investigating Officer over the incident of the case.

32. As per evidence of P.W. 7 her sister confessed that due to misdeed of Chand Mohan Sammader she would give birth to a child, and she had been to doctor with her sister for her medical examination, but as per evidence of the Investigating officer, P.W. 11, P.W. 7 Anjana Pramanik did not state that to him though he examined her.

___prophento ujjal das

BABAI10022DY The samajader ready at ujjal das 2021 no to next older
17. As per the provision of 'Sixthly' of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code it would be rape with or without consent when the woman concerned is under sixteen years of age. As regards the age of the defacto-complainant P.W. 5 it appears that she herself has stated in her written complaint, Exhibit 3, that she is aged about sixteen years, but as per the report of the Radiologist, who examined the victim girl namely Sipra Sarkar, as P.W. 9, Exhibit 2, coupled with her X-Ray plates, material Exhibit, 1, he was of the opinion that the age of the said V.G. was considered as 16 years with allowable variation, i.e, 6 months to 2 years. In view of this evidence of P.W. 9 there can be no hesitation to hold that the said victim girl Sipra Sarkar or P.W. 5 was more than sixteen years old and she was not under sixteen years of age and as such she was matured enough to give or not to give consent to sexual intercourse with her and so she consented to sexual intercourse with her voluntarily and consequently the instant case does not come within the purview of the description 'sixthly' of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code.

27. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that said Sipra Sarkar is her 'nanad' and Chand Mohan Sammader had talking terms with Sipra Sarkar and she came to know from para people that Sipra was carrying for 6 months and though initially she denied the defence suggestion that Sipra had talking terms with so many persons, yet thereafter she had deposed that Sipra had talking terms with many boys of her para. In that case the probability of her promiscuous nature can not be ruled out and when there is such probability, then there is doubt also.

28. As per the evidence of P.W. 3 Sipra Sarkar is her 'named' by Village courtesy, but she does not know the accused and she does not know any incident and she was not examined by the Investigating Officer about this case and as she has not supported the prosecution case, so she has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

29. As per evidence of P.W. 4 Sipra is her 'nanad' but she knows nothing about the incident of Sipra or about any incident in between Sipra and the accused Chand Mohan Sammader and so she has also been declared hostile by the prosecution as she did not support the prosecution case.

31. P.W. 6 has stated that Sipra Sarkar is her sister-in-law and Anjan Pramanik is his wife and on being asked his wife told him that Chand Mohan has committed rape upon Sipra, but apparently his evidence is hearsay and as per his evidence he was not examined by the Investigating Officer over the incident of the case.

32. As per evidence of P.W. 7 her sister confessed that due to misdeed of Chand Mohan Sammader she would give birth to a child, and she had been to doctor with her sister for her medical examination, but as per evidence of the Investigating officer, P.W. 11, P.W. 7 Anjana Pramanik did not state that to him though he examined her.

_Prophento ujjal