Conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and the reliability of a child witness. Minor contradictions should not be a ground for rejecting a reliable prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Ms. N. Anju, the learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2017, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, in Session Case No. 83/(CLG)/2014, by which, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14(fourteen) years, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default further imprisonment for 1(one) year.

3. The prosecution''s case is that on 06.10.2012, at around 2100 hours, an F.I.R. was submitted by Smti Anita Rai, wife of Dhon Bhadur Rai of Nampong village to the Officer-inCharge APP(O.C), Jairampur, stating that her daughter had been raped by the appellant on 06.10.2012 at 1030 hours. On the basis of the complaint filed, Jairampur P.S Case No. 26/2012, under Section 376 IPC, was registered. The victim girl was examined by a medical Doctor on 06.10.2012. The investigation was then initiated and Charge-sheet was filed by the I.O. after finding a prima facie case under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, against the appellant. The appellant also made a confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, First Class, Jairampur, Changlang District, wherein, he stated that he tried to rape the victim but the victim resisted.

4. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, framed charge under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, against the appellant on 12.12.2014. During the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, 10(ten) prosecution witnesses were examined. The examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was taken on 30.01.2017, wherein, he admitted that he attempted to commit rape upon the victim girl, but did not succeed.

wxyz

The learned Trial Court, thereafter, passed the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2017, in Sessions Case No. 83/(CGL)/2014, convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, and sentenced him to undergo 14(fourteen) years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default further imprisonment for 1 (one) year.

zyxw

5. The learned Amicus Curiae, submits that the appellant should have been convicted for an attempt to rape and not for rape under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, inasmuch as, the appellant had admitted to "attempt to rape" in his confession made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate and also, in his statement taken under section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Amicus Curie also submits that even if this Court upholds the conviction of the appellant under Section 376(f)(2) IPC, the sentence imposed upon the appellant should be lessened, as the appellant has never been involved in a case of this nature earlier. Also, as the appellant would have a chance for reformation, this Court should impose a lesser sentence than the one given by the learned Trial Court.

6. The learned Addl. P. P., on the other hand, submits that the evidence of the victim girl, has been corroborated by the medical report and the evidence adduced by the PW-2. As such, the case of rape having been clearly proved, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Trial court.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The evidence of the mother of the victim girl, i.e. PW-1, is to the effect that when she returned to her house at around 10.30 am from the market, she came to know that her 7(seven) year old daughter had been raped. She immediately went to the house of the appellant, who ran away, when he was seen. PW-1, thereafter, took the victim girl to the Hospital, wherein, she was treated. PW-1 stated that the condition of her daughter was very bad and while washing her, there were bite marks on her face and another one on her breast.

9. The evidence of the victim girl i.e. PW-3, is to the effect that, Raju, Santu and herself, were playing outside the house of Raju. Thereafter, she went inside the house to drink water in the kitche