S. Serto, J.

1. This is a criminal appeal filed by the prosecutrix and her aunty (the complainant in the FIR case) against the acquittal judgment and order dated 16/10/2015 of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kohima passed in G.R. Case No. 106 of 2014 which was instituted on the charge sheet submitted by the Kohima (North) P.S. on their case No. 32/2014, under section 376/506/342/511 of IPC wherein, the accused Mr. Samrat Prasad was acquitted.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows:-

On 23/05/2014, one Ms. Vilanuo Kelie-o of Kohima village lodged an FIR in the North Police Station, Kohima stating that her niece, aged about 20 years, was kidnapped by one Samrat Prasad, Constable/Driver, MT Branch attached to PHQ, Nagaland while she was on her way to school on 16/05/2014, at about 08:30 A.M. to 09:00 A.M. from Don Bosco area, Kohima and took her to Orchid Hotel at New Market, Kohima and committed rape on her, and thereafter the said accused threatened the victim that if she ever reveals to anybody about the incident he would kill her and her family. Following the report, an FIR case being, "the Kohima (North) P.S. Case No. 32/2014'' under Section 376/506/342/511 of IPC was registered by the Police station, and the accused Samrat Prasad was arrested on that day itself and investigation was conducted. After completion of the investigation, Kohima P.S submitted a charge sheet against the accused under section 376 (1) and Section 506 of IPC. After hearing the prosecution and the defence counsel, the Court framed the charge under Section 376(1) and Section 506 of IPC against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution thereafter produced and examined 7 PW's including the prosecutrix, I.O of the case and the Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix. No defence witness was produced by the accused. After considering the evidence in the record and after hearing the prosecution and the learned defence counsel, the Court acquitted the accused of the charge against him under section 376 & section 506 of IPC on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused and prosecution had completely failed to connect the accused with the alleged rape. The Court also acquitted the accused of the charge against him under section 506 of IPC on the ground that there is no acceptable evidence except the self serving statement of the prosecutrix which the Court is not willing to accept.

3. I have heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the two appellants. I have also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned P.P., Nagaland on behalf of the State and also Mr. Keleviho, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the accused/respondent and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel who supplemented the submission of the learned defence counsel.

Submission of Learned Counsel of the Appellants.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the accused admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix the only issue that was or is to be determined is whether the prosecutrix willingly and with her consent had sexual intercourse with the accused or was she forced by the accused against her will.

According to the learned counsel the version of the victim/prosecutrix that the accused by force and against her will had sexual intercourse with her in a room at a hotel is supported by the evidence of her boy friend (PW.2), evidence of her mother (PW.3), evidence of a friend of the accused (PW.4), the evidence of the doctor who examined her (PW.5) and evidence of the I.O of the case.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel submitted that PW.2 who is the boyfriend of the prosecutrix stated in his deposition that at about 11:00 A.M. to 12 noon of the same day i.e. on 16/05/2014 while he was playing cricket he received a phone call from