JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the accused /petitioner as well as Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam, representing the State respondent.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.04.2009, one Smti Jyoti Lahan lodged a written FIR with the Mikirbheta P.S. alleging inter alia that on 24.04.2009, at about 6:00 P.M., the accused person called her daughter aged 7 years to his house and committed rape on her. Accordingly the Mikirbheta P.S. Case No.60/2009 was registered u/s. 376(2)(f) IPC and took up investigation. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused u/s. 376(f) of the IPC.

3. During trial, the accused appeared before the Court and the learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and perusal of the case diary, charge u/s.376(2)(f) IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether twelve (12) witnesses including the Medical Officer and the I.O. The plea of the defence was of total denial and the defence examined none in support of his case. The statement of the accused u/s. 313 CrPC was recorded and after hearing the arguments, the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Morigaon by its order dated 08.06.2010, the accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for another one month, u/s. 354 IPC.

5. On appeal being preferred, the conviction and sentence was affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence the present revision petition is filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order.

6. The contention raised in the present petition is that the prosecution case is not beyond the shadow of doubt, as the victim who is a minor did not reported the matter immediately after the alleged occurrence and filing of the FIR on the next day is also doubtful. That apart, it has been contended that there is no eyewitness or any supporting evidence to the occurrence and the victim being minor is tutored one so her evidence cannot be relied.

7. I have considered the above contention raised by the Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, Mr. D. Das. Gone through the impugned judgment and order and the evidence on record.

8. So far as the present case is concerned, we are aware that the victim is a minor one aged about 7 years at the time of occurrence, so her evidence is to be read carefully along with the statement of her parents.

9. As the mother of the victim girl lodged the FIR after knowing the incident, so it will be useful to discuss her evidence who first observed the conduct and reaction of the victim girl. According to the informant/PW.1, on the day of occurrence, in the evening hours the accused/petitioner called her two minor daughters i.e. PW.2 seven years and PW.3 six years to his house to offer banana. After 15/20 minutes the girls returned home crying that the accused person is a bad man and he should not be called to their house. In the evening they slept by uttering that the accused person is bad man and in the morning on being asked, the PW.2 reported that the accused has committed bad act upon her by removing panty and pushed his private part to her private part. Knowing about the affair from her daughter, the FIR was lodged immediately and the Gaonburha was also informed.

10. The victim girl PW.2 (name withheld) was aged seven years at the time of occurrence and her younger sister Kakali Lahan, PW.3, both of them have given similar statement that on the pretext of giving banana, the accused took both of them to his house and thereafter the accused committed the bad act as stated by PW.1. They asked her mother not to allow the accused person to come to their house and also reported the matter to their mother. Their evidence remains un-rebutted throughout cross-examination and nothing emerges as to