The need for corroboration and the principle of proving the victim's statement on the principle of probability in cases of sexual offences.

JUDGMENT

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also, heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2018/11.10.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh, in Basar Sessions Case No. 783/2012, convicting the appellant under Section 376(1) of the IPC.

3. In the F.I.R. dated 21.12.2010, the 18 year old prosecutrix has alleged that on 19.12.2010, Dinkio Jitu requested her to give him company for n evening walk at Veterinary colony. She accompanied Dinkio Jitu and suddenly they noticed that the appellant was coming towards them. According to the prosecutrix, on seeing the appellant, Dinkio Jitu ran away from the spot. In the meantime, the appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. It was 4.30 in the evening when the said occurrence took place. The prosecutrix could not inform her guardians and brothers because all of them were not present in the house at that time. Therefore, on 21.12.2010, she had narrated the aforesaid facts.

4. On 22.12.2010, the victim girl was produced before a doctor at Daporijo District Hospital for Medical examination. By that time, the victim had taken several baths and also washed her clothes. The doctor further found that though the body of the victim girl had some superficial abrasions, there was no sign of recent vaginal penetration. The Doctor further found that the victim had an old ruptured hymen.

5. During investigation, Police recovered one wrist watch, one slipper and a black coloured partially torn pyjama from the place of occurrence. On conclusion of investigation, Police filed a Charge-sheet against the appellant. On his appearance before the Trial Court, the charge under Section 376 of the IPC was formally framed against the appellant. The accused denied the charge and hence, the Trial followed.

6. During the Trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses, including the Police Investigating Officer, the Medical Officer and the prosecutrix. The appellant examined 2(two) witnesses as defence witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court arrived at the impugned finding.

7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that the appellant was already known to her. She has disclosed that at the relevant time of occurrence, she was going to the house of her uncle at veterinary colony at Daporijo. On the way, she met Dinkio Jitu who forcibly took her to an orange orchard on the pretext of plucking oranges. The prosecutrix has stated that before they could reach the orange orchard, the appellant appeared in front of her and on seeing the appellant, Dinkio Jitu left the place. According to the prosecutrix, Dinkio Jitu is a relative of the appellant. The prosecutrix further disclosed that the appellant started to molest her and she had to fight with him for resisting him. She even tried to run away but the appellant had caught hold of her by her hair. The prosecutrix stated that the appellant forcibly carried her into the nearby jungle and laid her on the ground and he started to kiss her. The prosecutrix stated that when the appellant kissed her, she bit his lips and he was bleeding from his lips, thereafter. The prosecutrix stated that she even tried to pick up an empty beer bottle which was lying on the place of occurrence and tried to hit the appellant with that but she could not do that. After a prolonged fight, the prosecutrix got tired and thereafter, the appellant succeeded to commit rape upon her. The prosecutrix stated that she was threatened by the appellant who told her not to disclose the matter to anyone else. On reaching her home, the prosecutrix reported the matter to her elder sister.

8. The 2nd prosecution witness is Dinkio Jitu, who alle