The onus is on the prosecution to prove each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must deal with rape cases with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not getting swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses.

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20th/21st August, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2011 whereby and where under the learned judge has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376(f) of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the IPC) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- only, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of six months.

2. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment and order of conviction, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal on amongst other grounds that the learned trial judge failed to appreciate the evidence of the victim and her mother, who was the defacto complainant of the case, in its true perspective; failed to consider the effect of delay in lodging FIR in a case of rape; further failed to take into account that there was no medical report in support of the allegation of rape against the accused/appellant and also that in view of consistent change of narration as to how, when and where the alleged incident took place, the accused/appellant ought not to have been held guilty for committing an offence under Section 376(f) of the IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the first information report is that on 25th December, 2009 at about 5 p.m, the victim, a minor girl of approximately 11 years of age, was returning home from a neighbouring house where she used to work as domestic help. Then the appellant called her and forcibly took her to his room and tortured her physically. Due to such torture, the victim was feeling pain all over her body. As noted above, the mother of the victim is the defacto complainant who lodged the first information report containing the above statement on 26th December, 2009 at about 11.15 a.m.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint, Golabari P.S Case No.361 of 2009 was registered against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. During investigation, the victim's statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a learned Magistrate and she was also examined by the doctor. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet under Section 376 of the IPC against the present appellant.

6. The aforesaid case being committed to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, at Howrah framed charge against the appellant under Section 376 of the IPC. As the appellant pleaded not guilty when the charge so framed was read over and explained to him, trial of the case commenced.

7. In order to bring home the charge under section 376 of the IPC, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. The appellant pleaded innocence in the alleged occurrence during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. Learned trial judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376(f) of the IPC and sentenced him as noted above.

9. Mr. Moitra, learned senior advocate for the appellant contended that testimony of a victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. In other words, the sole testimony of a victim of rape may be the basis of conviction of an accused, if her evidence is found to be trustworthy, reliable and free from all blemishes.

10. With this introductory note as to the evidentiary value of a victim of sexual assault, Mr. Moitra drew our attention to the evidence of victim (PW2) and her mother (PW1) who was the defacto complainant of the case.

11. Pw2 stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence, at about 5 p.m, when she was returning from a neighbouring house where she used to work as a domestic help,