Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant/accused. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. U.S. Bargohain, learned counsel for the private respondent No.2 (informant).

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, convicting the accused/appellant in Sessions Case No.10 (DH)/2013, sentencing the accused to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for another one month, for the offence under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The accused also sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for one month, for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC and the sentences will run concurrently.

3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 05.12.2012 at about 8:30 A.M., while the informant’s niece (the victim) went to S.F.S. School to drop the informant’s minor children and on returning home, the accused forcibly took the victim and thereafter he made a demand of Rs.2 lakhs over phone to the informant threatening dire consequences if the demand is not fulfilled. On the basis of the FIR received, the Dhemaji P.S. Case No.331/2012, under Section 364(A) IPC was registered and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused person (appellant herein), under Sections 366/376/325 IPC.

4. The accused stood the trial and denied the charges that were framed under Sections 366/376(1) IPC. In support of the case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and the defence also examined two witnesses on rebuttal. The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC and at the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found and hold the accused guilty under Sections 366/376(1) IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

5. Aggrieved by the above judgment and order, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that such a finding of the Trial Court is erroneous and the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective of law as well as fact.

6. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the evidence so recorded by the prosecution and has led this Court throughout the evidence of the entire witnesses. Serious contention has been raised that the conduct of the victim herself is very crucial in the present case to adjudge the authenticity of her case. Mr. Biswas in his argument has vehemently contended that the conduct of the victim herself has been surrounded by serious doubt which is enough to destroy the credibility of her evidence. It is stated that the victim in the instant case aged about 22 years, not a minor and she was in a very much in a position to resist the accused/appellant from doing any harm to her body and mind, had she has intention to resist him. The victim girl was taken to different places after the said incident and in the process she made no any resistance, hue and cry etc., against the act of the accused person. It is also contended that in such serious offence, the prosecution has failed to produce any relevant witnesses to support the contention of the victim to show that she was forcibly kidnapped and raped by the accused person. Save and except some family members of the victim, no other independent witness was examined by the prosecution.

7. Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned counsel for the State respondent as well as Mr. U.S. Bargohain, learned counsel for the private respondent No.2 have however justify the conviction on the ground that the victim has indicated in her evidence about such forceful conduct of the accused which is also supported by the medical report. An argument have been advanced from the side of the informant that as the victim was taken to jungle by the accused, so she was not in a position to resist the accused and subsequently though she was taken to other places, the nam