Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Both the appeals are against the judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2 passed in Sessions Case No. 37/2000. By the said judgment, both the appellants, namely, Ranjit Das and Dimbeswar Das have been convicted under Section 376(g) IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10(ten) years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default to pay the fine they were to undergo S.I. for 1 (one) more month. While the accused Ranjit Das is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2011, the other accused, namely, Dimbeswar Das is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 202/2011. Both the appeals having arisen out of the same judgment have been heard together. I have heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel led by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants and have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned APP, Assam. I have also perused the entire materials on record.

2. Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction primarily being based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, her deposition will have to be considered in the touch stone of inspiring confidence. Referring to her alleged different stand in the FIR, statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and deposition made during trial, he submits that there being inherent contradictions, it will be dangerous to convict the accused appellant solely on the basis of her testimony. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 14 SCC 541 (Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam); (2008) 10 SCC 69 (Lalliram & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and (2012) 8 SCC 21 {Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)}. Mr. D. Das, learned APP, Assam on the other hand submits that minor variations in the FIR and the deposition made during trial cannot give rise to a situation in which the accused appellants can claim acquittal. According to him, the prosecutrix having vividly stated about commission of the offence by the accused appellants, the impugned judgment of conviction is required to be sustained.

3. Ext. 1 is the FIR dated 17.08.1999 lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) stating therein that at about 11-30 a.m. of 07.08.1999, when she had gone out in search of loom to weave, the accused persons along with one Shri Kabin Das took her away from the road at Kanchangaon to a house at Jyotinagar, Suakluchi, promising her to keep her as Weaver. Reaching the house, they took her inside and bolted the doors. Thereafter disrobing her, they committed rape. When she raised hue and cry, the neighbouring people came and thereafter the accused persons ran away. According to her, they were identified by PW-2, who was the owner of the house and a resident of Sualkuchi, Kanchannagar. As stated in the FIR, at the time of commission of the offence, one Smt. Jonali Bezbaruah was with her but the said Jonali was not examined by the prosecution.

4. Contrary to the above version in the FIR, the PW-1 in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that her husband wanted to run a business by placing looms at home. She had gone to her mother's house to learn weaving. On the day of the incident, she was in search of looms to learn weaving. Accused Ranjit Das i.e. the appellant in criminal appeal No. 222/2011 called her to his grocery shop, where she sat for a while. Thereafter, he in the pretext of providing her loom took her to his vacant house to show loom inside. She was accompanied by her younger sister Jonali Bezbaruah. Inside the house, 2 (two) boys were sitting and she did not have knowledge of the same. It was only after the incident, she came to know from the neighbouring people that those two boys were Dimbeswar Das and Kabin Das. She further stated that she knew Ranjit but never talked to him. Although, she raised hue and cry and continued to weep but no one heard her voice from outside. According to her, all the acc