Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned senior counsel for petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned additional public prosecutor for the state.

2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge IV(FTC) Kamrup(M) dated 6.10.2017 in sessions case 48/2015 arising from GR case 9623/2012 u/s 376/506 of the IPC whereby the appellant is convicted to r/i for 7 years with a fine of Rs 5,000 and in default to r/i for 5 months under the said Sections of law.

3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that respondent 2, working as cook of mead-day meal at Jyoti Vidyapeeth School in which appellant was headmaster, filed an FIR with Noonmati police station on 14.9.2012 against appellant alleging that on 31.8.2012 at around 7.30 PM the appellant called her in the school and tried to outrage her modesty after closing his door but somehow she could manage to come out of the room unhurt.

4. Following the FIR, Noonmati PS case 351/2012 u/s 294/354/511 of the IPC is registered. Police officer who was entrusted with the case recorded statement of the witnesses and sketched the spot and after conclusion of the investigation submitted charge sheet before learned SDJM(S) II, Kamrup(M) against appellant u/s 354/506 of the IPC.

5. After receiving summon the appellant appeared before the trial court. He was charged u/s 354/506 of the IPC and he pleaded innocence. Finding ingredients of rape in the evidence of appellant learned trial court committed the case to the court of the Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M).

6. The learned trial court framed charge u/s 376/506 of the IPC against appellant. The defence plea is of total denial.

7. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses including medical officer and the investigating officer. The learned trial court examined the appellant u/s 313 of the CrPC. Defence also examined 2 witnesses in support of their case. On conclusion of trial the appellant was convicted under the said Sections of law. Hence this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the case is fatal due to the delay in filing the case inasmuch as statement of the prosecutrix is highly unreliable who has twisted her case at different stages. That apart there is no medical evidence in support of her allegation and the entire facts and circumstances also indicate falsity of allegation.

9. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned additional public prosecutor for the state, who has supported the order of conviction.

10. I have gone through the entire evidence on record. It is to be noted that the entire case of like nature depends upon the testimony of prosecutrix and as usual there is no eye witness to the occurrence. In the instant case the prosecutrix is a married woman having two children and husband and is working at the school of the appellant as cook. There being no eye witness to the occurrence the conduct of the prosecutrix is very relevant and from all this prospect let us appreciate the evidence on record.

11. The prosecutrix namely X/PW1 in her evidence stated that on the day of occurrence the accused called her to the school on the pretext of cleaning the school premise for holding a meeting and accordingly she went to the school on 31.8.2012 at 7.30 AM and the accused tactfully confined her in a room and forcefully raped her. She returned to her home and kept silent for 14 days without informing the matter to anybody and according to her on being asked she told the matter to her sister (PW3), Rina Kalita, and thereafter on the advice of her sister she filed the FIR. Although the first FIR was written by PW4, as it was a long one it was changed and the present FIR (exhibit 1) was written by one boy. PW3 in her evidence stated that she was told by PW1 after few days of the occurrence and accordingly the FIR was filed. Similar is the version of PW2 that she heard the matter from PW1 that she was raped by the accused (without mentioning date, time, place, etc). PW4, Deep Kalita, is husb