P.K. Musahary, J.

1. None appears, today, on behalf of the convict appellant when the matter was called upon for hearing. However, I have heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addition Public Prosecutor, for the respondent State of Assam.

2. The instant appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19.12.2006 passed by the Court of learned Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati, in Sessions case No. 365(K)/2005 convicting the accused appellant under Sections 375/109, IPC and sentencing him to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer RI for a further period of 4 months.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused Sri Pradip Barman, who being the friend of the elder brother of the victim Smt. Junu Barman was in visiting terms with their family. On 2.12.2004, accused Sajal went to Lakhitari in the motorcycle of accused Sajal. After enjoying Raas at Lakhitari, the victim was taken to enjoy Raas Puja at Tetelia by accused Sajal and Sukhil in the motorcycle. The victim was taken from Tetelia to Jalisara concrete bridge by accused Sajal and Sukhil where accused Sukhil raped her over the bridge while the accused Sajal was sitting in the stationary motorcycle at some distance from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, she was taken to Lakhitari by accused Sajal and Sukhil and at Lakhitari, they met Pradip. Thereafter, accused Pradip and Sajal took her to her home and dropped there. The victim was a minor on the date of occurrence.

4. A crime being Khetri P.S. case No. 199/2004 under Sections 376/34, IPC was registered and the police, thereafter, started the investigation. On completion of the investigation, the IO submitted charge-sheet against accused Sukhil Mallick, Pradip Barman and Sajal Sutradhar under Sections 376/109, IPC. On 15.12.2004, the victim girl was produced before a Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement and on the same day, she was also produced before a Medical Officer for medical test. The case was, thereafter, committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned trial Court framed charge against Sri Mallick under Section 376, IPC and also against co-accused Sajal Sutradhar and Pradip Barman under Sections 376/109, IPC. The accused persons including the present appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial.

The prosecution examined as many as 12 (twelve) witnesses while the defence examined none. After full-dress trial and on consideration of the materials and evidence on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the main accused Sukhil Mallick under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 4 (four) months. The present appellant Sri Sajal Sutradhar and other accused Pradip Barman were convicted under Sections 376/109, IPC and were sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another 4(four) months each. Out of the 3(three) convicts, only accused Sajal Sutradhar who was convicted under Sections 376/109, IPC, as state above, is before this Court, in appeal.

5. Ext. 1 is the First Information Report (FIR), lodged by the brother of the victim girl wherein the name of the present accused appellant has been mentioned as one of the accused persons. Ext. 5 is the statement of the victim girl under Section 164, Cr PC, recorded on oath by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. In the said statement, the victim girl has mentioned the name of the present accused appellant as to how he was involved in taking her on the motorcycle to enjoy Raas Puja and thereafter, Mallick ravished her. Although the incident took place in the night of 2.12.2004, the FIR was lodged only on 14.2.2004. The delay, so occurred in filing the F