The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of consistent and reliable statements of the victim girl in cases of rape, the need for the evidence to inspire confidence and be creditworthy, and the responsibility of the courts in dealing with cases involving sexual assaults.

JUDGMENT

Sugato Majumdar, J. - instant appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 17/09/2013 and 18/09/2019 respectively passed by the Sessions Judge, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 93/2013 convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Genesis of the present case is the written complaint dated 28/10/2012 submitted by the prosecutrix/victim in Jagacha Police Station. It was alleged in the written complaint that the prosecutrix had a love affair with the appellant for about one year prior to the incident. Both of them used to roam around together and the affair was known to the local people. The appellant assured the prosecutrix to marry her. On 28/10/2012 at about 06:30 P.M., the appellant called the prosecutrix over telephone. They met each other in a building of the locality, then under construction, near the residence of the appellant. It was stated by the appellant to the prosecutrix that he would discuss on their prospective marriage. The prosecutrix went there. The appellant promised to marry her and forcefully committed rape upon her. She returned home and informed the matter to her family members. She also submitted the written complaint which was received by the Jagacha Police Station on 29/10/2012 at 00:35 hours.

3. On receiving the written complaint formal F.I.R was drawn up against the appellant being Jagacha Police Station Case No. 612/2012 dated 29/10/2012 under Sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation began. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4. Since the offence was traible by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to the appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter trial began.

5. The defense of the appellant was his innocence and false implication in the case. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which his plea was innocence and false implication although he admitted that he had an affair with the prosecutrix.

6. The trial court on conclusion of the trial held the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further term of three months.

7. On being aggrieved, the instant appeal is preferred.

8. Mr. Addhya, the Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation made by the prosecutrix in the written complaint is that on assurance of marriage the appellant raped the victim. That assurance was not false as is evident from subsequent marriage between them. Because of such marriage, the very basis of the allegations has been set at naught. The trial court failed to take into consideration that aspect of the matter.

9. Next Mr. Adhya submitted that medical report does not corroborate the allegation of rape. It is the case of the prosecutrix that she had long term relationship with the appellant. The medical report (Ext. 5) does not indicate any forceful rape. In fact, according to him, it doesn't corroborate the allegation of rape. Medical report opines that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. Such opinion reinforces the hypothesis of consensual sex, as appears from the written complaint. The trial court committed error in relying on the medical report, according to Mr. Adhya.

10. Next Mr. Adhya submitted that the statements of the prosecutrix are rife with contradictions. No other evidence came forward to corroborate the allegations leveled against the appellant. The trial court rather superficially relied upon the statements of the prosecutrix that she was raped without taking into consideration the contradictions and intrinsic incoherences of her statements. In absence of corroboration, ambiguous and contradictory statements should not be relie