Credible testimony of the victim can support a conviction if it is reliable, yet inconsistencies and lack of corroboration undermine allegations of sexual assault, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2007 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Ambikapur District-Surguja (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 49/2006, Sessions Division-Surguja Place-Ambikapur (C.G.), wherein the said Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under :-

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case is that on 26.02.2006 at around 7 pm, the prosecutrix/ victim after filling up the water from a well in the village Jamuadand, went to the sugarcane field of Ramgahan for open defecation. At that time, the accused caught hold of her, made her fall on the ground and without her consent satiated his lust by committing forcible sexual intercourse upon her and as the victim was screaming, he stuffed her mouth with a cloth. The prosecutrix/victim immediately informed her mother-in-law about the incident. As the victim’s husband was absent at the time of the incident, the F.I.R of sexual assault was filed by the prosecutrix at the Balrampur Police Station upon his arrival. On the basis of the said information the crime number was registered and the investigation was started. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 376 (1), 506 (II) of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC & ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant having abjured his guilt was subjected to trial.

3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him, pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the accused/appellant has not adduced any witness in his defence.

4. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has convicted and sentenced the present accused/appellant as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this present appeal.

5. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution witnesses PW-02, PW- 03, PW-04, PW-05, PW-07 and PW-08 have admitted this fact that the prosecutrix and the accused are neighbours and they have cordial relations with each other and both of them often used to visit each other’s house, but the prosecutrix had denied this established facts and deposited in her evidence that she saw the accused for the first time at the place of the incident and second time in the court and she never saw the accused/appellant ever. Both of the prosecutrix and the appellant were called before the Panchayat and after advice of the Panchayat, the matter was reported to the police, but this established facts is totally denied by the prosecution witnesses PW- 01, PW-02, PW-03 and PW-04, however, PW-10