Birendra Kumar, J.—The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.1011 of 2008, arising out of Complaint Case No.420 of 2006, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rosera, Samastipur, found the appellant guilty for offences under Sections 448, 341, 504 and 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Simple imprisonment of six months was awarded for offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment of one month was awarded for offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment of one year was awarded for offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment of four years was awarded for offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code along with fine of rupees two thousand. In default of payment of fine further one month imprisonment was ordered. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

Two others had also faced trial along with the appellant. They were acquitted by the same judgment. The lower Court record reveals that the appellant was all along on bail as cognizance was not taken under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after conviction the appellant is serving out the sentences since 19.11.2018.

2. The background of the complaint based allegation is that husband of the complainant, namely, Rajendra Sahu and this appellant were working at Guwahati vide evidence PW 1 the complainant, PW 4 Gorakh Paswan and DW 1 Sachin Kumar. Old dispute was there between the parties as the appellant had allegedly borrowed Rs.5,500/- from the complainant and was not refunding the same vide statement of the complainant on oath. In the very first paragraph of the complaint petition the complainant stated that about 20 days prior to the alleged occurrence there was an act of abuse and assault committed by the accused persons including the appellant.

3. So far present case is concerned the prosecution allegation is that on 03.07.2006, at about 11:00 PM, the appellant entered into the house of the complainant in village Araut, P.S. Rosera, District- Samastipur, and attempted to ravish her. The complaint petition was filed on 04.07.2006 itself simply stating therein that the complainant went to the police station but the police refused to institute the case. The complaint petition is not on affidavit.

4. In support of the complaint case, during trial, the prosecution examined altogether four witnesses. PW 1 the prosecutrix, PW 2 Bulanti Devi, PW 3 Manju Devi and PW 4 Gorakh Paswan. DW 1 Sachin Kumar, a co-villager of the parties, deposed that the appellant was working in Asam and on 01.07.2006 he fell ill and was ailing for a week.

5. Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that a careful scrutiny of the complaint petition and testimony of the prosecutrix would reveal that there are major contradictions on the manner of occurrence and place of occurrence. Her conduct in not reporting the matter to the police in writing or not making a complaint to the senior police officer in writing against the alleged refusal of the police station to institute the FIR is in utter violation of sub-section (3) of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Institution of police case was deliberately avoided as the police investigation would have collected the medical evidence and other independent evidence in support and against the charge. Therefore, the whole criminal prosecution was itself bad-in-law in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. Learned counsel contends that other prosecution witnesses who claim to have witnessed the part of the occurrence, namely, PW 2 Bulanti Devi and PW 4 Gorakh Paswan are not reliable as their testimony improbabilises their presence at the time of occurrence. The learned trial Judge has ignored the serious infirmities creating doubt