Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon, in Sessions Case No. 153/2009, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, 3 months R.I.

3. The facts of the case is that on 24.04.2009 at night about 10:30 p.m., the accused taking advantage of the absence of the informant ‘X’ (name withheld) entered into the house of the informant and showing threat to her life, he took her to the backside of her house and committed rape upon her forcefully. Though the matter was informed to the family of the accused person but they did nothing, and ultimately, the informant had lodged a petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon which was forwarded to the O.C. of Uluoni Police Station for investigation. Accordingly, a case was registered under Section 376/341/506/457 I.P.C. against the accused person vide Uluoni P.S. Case No. 22/2009.

4. The statement of the victim women was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and after due investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused person under Section 341/457/376/506 I.P.C.

5. The offence under Section 376 I.P.C. being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties framed the charge under Sections 457/376 I.P.C. against the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty.

6. In support of the case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and defence examined none. Plea of defence is total denial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court held the accused guilty under Section 457/376 I.P.C. and sentenced him under said Sections of law. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of conviction, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. The thrust of the argument of the appellant is that, the whole prosecution case is doubtful because of the conduct of the prosecutrix who made no hue and cry at the time of occurrence. The minor daughter of the victim women has also not stated anything about the occurrence. Pointing towards the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been argued that the evidence of the prosecutrix, is fully clouded by the shadow of doubt as the facts and circumstances of the case do not corroborate her testimony. As because there is nothing to show that the door of the house of the informant was broken, then how the accused appellant entered into the house is a crucial question and there is no answer to the same. The further case is fatal on the point of delay as nothing has been explained about the point of delay. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has urged the Court to maintain the conviction in view of the testimony of the victim herself as there is no any enmity between the parties for false implication and an offence of like nature, the conviction can be passed only on the basis of evidence of prosecutrix.

8. Let us appreciate the evidence of proxecutix/the complainant herein who appearing as PW – 1 (name withheld) has stated that on 24.04.2009, while her husband was not at home and she was sleeping alongwith her 8 years old daughter, then at about 10:30 p.m., the accused entered into their house by breaking the door of their house and forcefully took her away towards the bamboo plantation in the backside of their house. Thereafter, he laid her on the ground and committed rape upon her. On the next day, her husband came and she informed the matter to him and very next day she went to the house of accused to inform the incident but they rebuked her and accu