C.R. Sarma, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 26.11.2007, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), No. 4 Kamrup, Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 147/2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC No. 4, Kamrup convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 304 IPC. It has also been ordered that the period of detention, already undergone by the appellant, shall be treated as set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.1.2014 at about 6.00 p.m. when the victim girl, who was aged about 12 years visited the residence of the appellant, who was a retired teacher, for taking tuition and the appellant, taking the opportunity of absence of other persons, touched her private part and laid her on the bed with an intention to commit rape on her. However, the victim girl could release herself from the appellant and thus, rescued herself.

Her maternal uncle with whom she used to live lodged the FIR with the Officer-in-Charge of Bharalumukh Police Station. On receipt of the FIR, police registered Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 297/2004 under Sections 376/511 IPC and launched investigation into the matter.

4. At the close of investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Sections 376/ 511 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, No. 4, Kamrup, Guwahati framed charges under Section 376 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as, 10 witnesses including the Medical Officer (PW 10) and the Investigating Police Officer (PW 8). After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Judge examined the accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and examined one defence witness, as DW- 1. His plea was a complete denial one.

6. Considering the evidence, on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), No. 4, Kamrup, Guwahati held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above.

7. Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there is no substantive evidence against the appellant. The learned counsel, referring to the medical evidence, given by the PW 10, has submitted that the age of the victim girl, at the relevant time, was 17 years and that she was habituated to sex. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the learned trial Judge based the conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim girl and that the appellant, who is aged about 70 years, is entitled to be acquitted for want of sufficient evidence.

8. Controverting the said argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam has submitted that the evidence, given by the victim girl, is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged offence and as such the learned trial Judge committed no error or illegality requiring interference by this court. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that, despite cross-examination made by the defence, the forceful evidence given by the prosecutrix, remained undemolished and that the evidence given by the defence witness i.e. DW 1 is not inconformity with the plea taken by the appellant i.e. the accused person. In view of the above, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned conviction and sentence needs no interference.

9. Having he