C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 19-8-05, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. S.T. (WT/A) 164 of 2004. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the convict as Appellant has come up with this appeal.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, may be stated as follows:

One evening, in the month of Phalgun, 1410 BS (corresponding to 15th February to 15th March, 2004 AD), the minor daughter (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim girl') of Smt. Minati Ghosh (PW 5) was sleeping alone in her house. Taking this opportunity of absence of the mother of the victim girl, who was away from her house in connection with her duty relating to Anganwadi school, her neighbourer Sri Anath Giri i.e. the Appellant, trespassed into the house, where the victim girl was sleeping and forcibly committed rape on her. After committing the said offence, the Appellant, by showing a dagger, had threatened her not to disclose the matter to anybody and on being so threatened the victim girl did not inform about the incident to anybody, including her mother i.e. PW 5 till her pregnancy was detected by the medical officer. After about 2 to 3 months of the said rape, the victim girl had fallen sick and she was taken to a private medical practitioner, who after examination, opined that she was pregnant. Upon receipt of such medical opinion, on being asked by her mother, the victim girl disclosed about the incident, involving the accused person and accordingly, PW 5 informed the neighbouring people, including the members of 'Routhkhala Youth club'. Accordingly, a meeting was held in the said club, wherein the Appellant had confessed his guilt. On being advised by the members of the club, the victim girl herself, on 19-7-04, lodged an FIR informing the police about the offence, committed by the accused person. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered a case under Section 376/417IPC and launched investigation into the matter. At the close of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet under Section 376/506 IPC and forwarded the accused person to the court to stand trial.

4. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, West Tripura committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, considering the materials on record, framed charge under Section 376(1) IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove their case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including two Medical Officers and the investigating police officer. At the close of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Code of Civil Procedure. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as indicated above.

6. Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, taking this Court through the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence regarding the date of commission of offence and the period of pregnancy, has submitted that there are major contradictions and discrepancies pertaining to the date of occurrence and that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. As it is the burden of the prosecution to establish the allegations, brought by them, th