Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, representing the State.

2. The present informant/the victim is a married woman having children and husband and she filed an FIR before the Silapathar P.S. on 09-04-2014 to the effect that on 13-03-2014, while she was sleeping in her mother's house situated in the same village along with her three years old daughter, then at about 12 O'clock at midnight, the accused person along with two others with their face masked with black clothes, entered into the house by cutting the bamboo wall of the house and lifted her by gagging her mouth, took her across the Demow river forcefully and put her into an Alto Car. Thereafter she was taken to Arunachal Pradesh and after confining her in a house of GRIEF company, the accused sexually abused her. While she informed the matter to her husband over mobile phone, then she was rescued by her husband along with others on 06-04-2014, from the said place. After such recovery, she filed the FIR on 09-04-2014.

3. On the basis of the FIR, the Silapathar P.S. Case No.90/2014, under Section 448/427/366/376/34 of the IPC was registered and the statement of the victim woman was also recorded before the Court under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C and she was also medically examined. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 344/376 of the IPC, against the accused person.

4. The accused person faced the trial and denied the charges and claimed to be tired. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses in support of the case and the defence examined none. The plea of the defence is of total denial.

5. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C wherein he denied the allegation.

6. At the conclusion of the trial and hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(1)/344 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default R.I. for another one month, under Section 376(1) IPC. Further he was also sentenced to R.I. for two years under Section 344 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default S.I. for another one month, with a direction to run the sentence concurrently.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has come to a erroneous finding about the guilt of the accused, ignoring the infirmities that has been cropped up in the prosecution case.

8. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, appearing for and on behalf of the State respondent and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

9. By drawing the attention of the testimony of the victim woman it has been submitted by Mr. Z. Kamar, learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the victim herself is inconsistent about the entire affair who has given different versions in the FIR, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C as well as her evidence in course of trial and such an inconsistent statement cannot inspire confidence at all so as to place reliance upon the credibility of such victim woman. It has also been pointed out that she being a married woman even if she was taken by force by the accused but what prompted her to stay with the accused person for more than 21 days without any protest. Her evidence lack support from the medical evidence as well as other independent witnesses save and except the testimony of her mother.

10. On the next it is also submitted that there was vast discrepancies as regards the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence and unexplained delay in filing the FIR. Accordingly prayer has been made that accused is entitled to acquittal for such serious