The main legal point established in the judgment is that conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful.

R.B. Misra, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 22 (ST/B) of 1999 holding the accused-appellant guilty under Section 354 of IPC, thereby sentencing him to undergo R. I., for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one month.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.9.1998 at about 21-00 hours the accused Babul Sarkar forcibly broken open the bamboo made jhap/door of the hut of Smti. Sandhya Rani Debnath, entered inside the hut and forcibly committed rape on her. On the basis of the FIR, lodged by Smti. Sandhya Rani Debnath on 22.9.1998, Belonia P.S. Case No. 121/1998 under Sections 448/376 of IPC was registered. It was indicated in the FIR by the victim herself that on 21.9.1998 at about 9.00 p.m. the accused entered inside her hut and despite her resistance the accused had overpowered her and had laid her on her cot and forcibly committed rape on her. She raised cry calling the name of the accused, thereupon seeing the neighbours coming towards her house accused escaped away from her house.

3. The Investigation Officer recorded statements of some witnesses, seized the petticoat of the informant, arranged her medical examination at Belonia Hospital and also produced her before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter on completion of investigation charge-sheet against the accused Babul Sarkar was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance had committed the case to the Session Court.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, (1) P.W. 1, Smti, Sandhya Rani Debnath, (2) P.W. 2, Shri Subhash Paul, (3) P.W. 3, Shri Swapan Paul, (4) P.W. 4, Smti. Seuli Rani Paul, (5) P.W. 5, Shri Ranjit Majumder, (6) P.W. 6, Shri Tushar Kanti Bhowmik, (7) P.W. 7, Shri Uttam Debnath, (8) P.W. 8, S.I. Dipak Das, (9) P.W. 9, Shri Asish Paul and (10) P.W. 10, Dr. B.K. Sen. During examination of the prosecution witnesses the Exbt. 1, written F.I.R., Exbt. 1/1, signature of P.W. 1 in the written F.I.R., Exbt. M.O.I., one patticoat, Exbt. 2, signature of P.W. 1 in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Exbt. 1/2, signature of P.W. 6 in the F.I.R., Exbt. 1/3, endorsement and signature of O/C, Belonia P.S. on the body of the F.I.R., Exbt. 1/4, prescribed form of F.I.R. duly filled in by the O/C, Belonia P.S., Exbt. 3, seizure list of petticoat, Exbt. 4, hand sketch map of P.O., Exbt. 4/1, Index of hand sketch map, Exbt. 2/1, statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., Exbt. 2/2, signature of P.W. 9 in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Exbt. 5, report of Medical Officer, were also proved.

5. P.W. 1, the victim/prosecutrix, who lodged the F.I.R. is the sole eye witness of the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are very close neighbours of the P.W. 1 who have rushed to the house of P.W. 1 immediately after hearing her cries. P.W. 2 also a neighbour, who heard the cries of the victim at the relevant time, however did not go there. P.Ws 5 and 6 are also the residents of that locality, who were informed by the informant. P.W. 6 is the scriber of the F.I.R. P.W. 9 learned SDJM, Belonia at the relevant time had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.W 10 the Medical Officer had examined the victim/prosecutrix on production by the I.O. P.W. 8 is the I.O. of the case.

6. The defence examined none except denial of the prosecution story under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with further indication in the cross-examination that the prosecutrix used to purchase rice from the shop of the accused on credit and when the accused demanded the price she made the false allegation against him.