JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. De, learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the leaned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonitipur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 146/2012, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Sections 457/376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another 3 months for the offence under Section 376 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence under Section 457 IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case is that one Jitu Kalita lodged an FIR on 17.02.2012 before the Officer-in-Charge, Dhekiajuli Police Station stating inter-alia that on 15.02.2012 at about 12 o’clock (mid night), while he was watching ‘bhawna’ at Ward No. 6, one Paresh Nath, a resident of Ward No. 6, entered into his house by taking advantage of his absence and forcefully committed rape on his wife while she was sleeping inside the room and fled away.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 80/2012 under Section 457/376 IPC and the investigation was commenced. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of the victim as well as other witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under Section 457/376 IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonitpur, Tezpur. As the offence under Section 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly.

5. During trial, the accused/appellant had appeared before the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sonitpur as the case was transferred to the said court for trial. The learned trial court on considering the materials available in the case had framed charges against the accused/appellant under Sections 457/376 IPC to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, 7(seven) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. After completion of trial, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him. On the other hand, the accused stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had delivered the judgment convicting the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there are lots of contradictions in the statement of the victim as well as other witnesses and the allegation of committing such offences either Section 376 IPC or 457 IPC are not made out against the accused/appellant. Thus, in absence of any evidence to that effect, the learned trial court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that the accused had committed the alleged offences and as such, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is liable to set aside.

8. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the incident occurred on 15.02.2012 whereas the FIR was lodged on 17.02.2012 but there was no explanation regarding delay of lodging the FIR which creates a serious doubt in the prosecution story and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered by this Court.

9. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentences on the ground that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidences adduced by the prosecution. It is submitted that serious omissions, c