This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-10-2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2013.

2. Learned counsel Mr. S.K. Talukdar for the petitioner and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. D. Das were heard.

3. The facts leading to the present revision petition may be briefly stated thus :-The petitioner extended a proposal for marriage to the victim (PW 4), which was followed by negotiation between the elderly members of both the families and the marriage was settled between the petitioner and alleged victim and the date was also fixed. Before the marriage, the petitioner committed rape on the victim and as a result of which, she became pregnant and upon insistence of the petitioner, the pregnancy was terminated. After termination of the pregnancy, the petitioner refused to marry the victim and as such, the victim lodged the FIR, on the basis of which, police registered a case and after usual investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner u/s 493/420/313 of the IPC.

4. In course of trial charges u/s 376/417/313 IPC were framed against the petitioner and the learned trial court convicted the petitioner u/s 376/417 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 30,000/-with default stipulation u/s 376 IPC and imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default stipulation u/s 417 IPC. Learned trial court, however, acquitted the petitioner of charge u/s 313 IPC. On appeal against the conviction, learned appellate court, by the impugned judgment, set aside the conviction u/s 376 IPC and convicted the petitioner u/s 417 and 312 IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Talukdar raised two points in this revision petition. The first contention of the learned counsel was that conviction and sentence of the petitioner u/s 312 IPC by the appellate court was illegal and unsustainable, in view of acquittal of the petitioner of the charge u/s 313, IPC by the learned trial court, inasmuch as, no appeal was filed against such acquittal. The second contention raised by the learned counsel is that there was no legal evidence at all to bring home a charge u/s 417 IPC, and as such, conviction and sentence u/s 417 and 312 IPC was also not sustainable.

6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that the power of the appellate court is wide enough, and as such, conviction of the petitioner u/s 312 IPC cannot be faulted if the evidence and materials on record is sufficient to establish such charge.

7. The power of the appellate court is laid down in Section 386 of the Cr.P.C., which is as follows :-

“386. Power of the Appellate Court. After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor if he appears, and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the appeal, or may-

(a) in an appeal from an order or acquittal, reverse such order and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be re- tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;

(b) in an appeal from a conviction-

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re- tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or

(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the Same;

(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence-

(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re- tried by a Court competent to try the offence, or

(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or

(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the