Paran Kumar Phukan, J.

Under assailment in this appeal in the judgment and order dated 05.04.2006, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Adhoc), Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 53(J-J0)/2005, convicting the accused appellant, Bhaiti Ali under Section 417 of the IPC and sentencing him to R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default, R.I. for another 3 months.

2. The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that the complainant, (victim girl), a resident of village Kakojan under Teok Police Station in the year 2004 used to come to Jorhat frequently in connection with her nursing training course. While visiting Jorhat she came in contact with the accused appellant and love affair developed between them. On 08.09.2004, the accused appellant took her to Teok to a hotel and with the promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with her as a result of which she became pregnant.

3. The accused appellant tried his best to terminate the pregnancy through doctors but she refused to and divulged the incident to her mother. Even after her refusal to terminate the pregnancy, the accused appellant continued to maintain relationship with her and he repeatedly promised that he would marry her. He ultimately disclosed that he was a married man having children and he started avoiding her. Having no other alternative, the complainant lodged an FIR with the Teok Police. Refusal of the police to take any action on the FIR filed by her compelled her to file a complaint before the learned CJM, Jorhat. The learned CJM called for a police report and accordingly a report was submitted by the O/C, Teok P.S. stating that no case has been registered on the basis of any FIR filed by the complainant.

4. Thereafter, learned court proceeded to examine complainant and her witnesses and having found a prima facie case under section 376/417 of the IPC committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.

5. The case came for trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Jorhat. During trial the complainant examined 7 witnesses including officials. Defence examined none and took the plea of total denial. The learned Court on conclusion of trial found the accused appellant guilty of offence u/s 417 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him accordingly as stated above. However, he was acquitted of the offence u/s 376 of the IPC.

6. Being highly aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction, the accused appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment under misconception of law and facts, that there was non-application of mind by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, that the evidence of the prosecutrix and her witnesses have not been properly appreciated for which the judgment is liable to be set aside.

7. Heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant and also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam. Perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record.

8. Arguing the case Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant emphatically submitted that no ingredients of section 417 IPC has been established against the accused appellant. His next contention is that there was enough delay in filing the complaint which casts serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case.

9. Controverting the submissions Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. PP, submitted that all the essential ingredients of section 417 IPC have been established against the accused appellant. Regarding delay his submission is that the complainant initially filed FIR before police but since no action has been taken by police she was compelled to file the complaint before the court and as a result there was some delay in filing the same, delay is properly explained from the facts of the case.

10. Before I delve deep inside the prosecution story in the backdrop of the submissions of the learned counsel for both the