U.B. Saha, J.

1. In this appeal, the challenge is the judgment and order, dated 25.3.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in ST 91 (NT/K)/2005 whereby and where under, the accused Appellant, Rahim Debbarma, was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/-, i.d to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted for committing offence under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, i.d to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences will run consecutively.

2. Heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State Respondent.

3. The prosecution case as revealed at the time of trial, in short, is as follows:

Smt. Lata Mukhi Debbarma, (P.W. 1) lodged a complaint with the Kailashahar police station on 18.12.2004 at about 11.35 hours, alleging, inter alia, that her minor daughter, P.W. 2 ( hereinafter referred to as victim-X) while residing in a rented house of one Sri Sumit Malakar (P.W. 3), for preparation of her examination got acquainted with the accused Appellant being he was residing in the adjacent house and on 17.9.2004, on the day of Biswakarma Puja, her daughter was raped by the accused Appellant by gagging her mouth and forcibly tearing her dress. She further stated in the said First Information Report (FIR) that on the day of alleged commission of rape, the roommate of her daughter, namely, Smt. Dhanyamala Debbarma (P.W7) was not in the room as she went to her house.

4. It is also stated that the accused Appellant performed sexual intercourse in later times also with her daughter victim-X alluring to marry her and as a result of the said sexual intercourse, her daughter victim-X became pregnant.

5. At that circumstances, the accused Appellant took her to the doctor for examination and without her consent, Dr. Pradip Kr. Bardhan with the help of the accused and 4/5 of his associates terminated the pregnancy after making her senseless and when she regained her sense, the accused Appellant gave her the news of abortion.

6. In the month of December, when P.W. 1, the informant, came to the rented house of her daughter in Kailashahar, the victim-X disclosed the facts of the said incident of rape to her mother, (P.W. 1). Thereafter, P.W. 1 sent message to her husband and the victim-X was examined by Dr. Debabrata Datta(P.W. 6).

7. On receipt of the said information, her husband (PW 5) came to Kailashahar on 10.12.2004 when she (P.W. 1) informed him about the aforesaid incident.

8. It is further stated that as the victim-X is a minor daughter, she did not inform regarding the aforesaid incident in proper time being afraid of social scandal and she (P.W. 1) also could not lodge the complaint with the police immediately after the incident.

9. According to the informant, the mother of the victim-X, at the relevant time of incident, her daughter was at the age of 17 years.

10. On receipt of the written complaint, Kailashahar P.S case No. 152 of 2004 was registered under Sections 376/318/506 IPC. Accordingly, investigation was taken up and charge sheet was submitted against the accused Appellant showing him as absconder.

11. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar after receipt of the charge sheet took cognizance of the offence and being the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the case in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar.

12. The accused Appellant surrendered before the Court after filing of the charge sheet and he was enlarged on bail.

13. The learned Sessions Judge upon receipt of the case records framed the charges against the accused Appellant which are reproduced below:

(1) Whether the accused Ruhin Deb Barma on 17.09.2004 at about 2000 hou