The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of consent in sexual intercourse, the presumption of lack of consent under Section 114A of the Evidence Act, and the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate the existence of consent.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By the judgment and order, dated 30.06.04, passed in Sessions Case No. 188/2001, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

2. The case against the accused-appellant, as unveiled at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: The victim, 'D', aged about 20/21 years, who is the daughter of the first informant 'B', came from the house of her parents, who live at Rangapara to Koliabor to attend a wedding. On 12/02/99, D's maternal uncle took her from Koliabor to Tezpur, at about 11-00 a.m., by a bus and at Tezpur, D's uncle made her board into a bus, which was to proceed to Balipara and asked the driver of the bus i.e., accused Anand Mandal to drop 'D' at Balipara. In the said bus, accused Prakash Nath (i.e., the accused-appellant) was a handyman (i.e., helper). The bus reached Balipara with 'D' as one of its passengers at about 3-00 p.m. On being asked by accused Anand (since absconder) to go to his residential quarter, 'D' accompanied the said two accused, to the residential quarter of accused Anand. Keeping, however, 'D' locked inside the said residential quarter alone, the two accused left the house. In the later part of the evening of that very day, both the accused returned to the said quarter, had meals and also some liquor and, then, forcibly had sexual intercourse with 'D'. Accused Prakash, again, forcibly had sexual intercourse with 'D' at late hours of the night. As a result of such forcible sexual intercourse, 'D' started bleeding through her vagina. In the early morning of the following day, the two accused took 'D' to the bank of the river, located nearby and left her there. At the place, where 'D' was so left, 'D' happened to meet a woman named Neeru, who, on coming to know about what 'D' had been subjected to, got her ('D') sent to Balipara hospital for treatment and, eventually, her parents were informed. While 'D' was lying at the hospital for treatment, her father 'B' lodged a written Ejahar, on 13.02.1999, at Charduar Police Outpost. Based on this Ejahar and treating the same as F.I.R., police registered a case against the two accused aforementioned under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the victim, 'D', was medically examined. During the course of investigation, the police also seized the wearing apparels of the victim, the bed-sheet, where the alleged sexual intercourse had taken place, and also the wearing apparels of the accused. These seized materials were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. Some of these seized articles, on serological examination, were found to bear human blood stains. On completion of investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the two accused aforementioned under Section 376(2)(g) showing accused Anand Mandal as absconder.

3. To a charge framed against him, at the trial, under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., the accused-appellant pleaded non guilty.

4. In support of their case, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. The accused-appellant was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in his examination aforementioned, the accused-appellant denied that they had committed the offence alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of total denial. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. Having found the accused-appellant guilty of the charge framed against him, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned hereinabove. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence passed against him, the accused-appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional