JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. The present Crl. Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 is filed assailing the judgment dated 02.03.2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8 (D-2)/09 by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang whereby the conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Darrang in Sessions Case No. 21(DM-1)/2008 was affirmed.

3. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an F.I.R. dated 13.03.2007 by the informant before the Officer-in-Charge, Dalgaon, Police Station alleging that on 12.03.2007 at 11:00 PM while she came out of the house to respond to nature’s call, the accused forcefully laid down her on the ground showing a dagger and committed rape on her.

4. On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-in-Charge, Dalgaon P.S. registered Dalgaon P.S Case No. 107/2007 under Section 376 of IPC for investigation. Accordingly, the investigation was conducted and thereafter, charge sheet was filed under Section 376 of the IPC against the accused petitioner.

5. Thereafter, committal Court committed the matter to the learned Session Judge, Darrang who in turn empowered the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to try the case. Charges were framed on 26.02.2008 against the petitioner and was explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded to be not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial was commenced.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, however, defence examined none. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

7. Thereafter, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner under section 378 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine and in default, to undergo RI for three months.

8. Such judgment was challenged before the learned Sessions judge in Criminal Appeal No. 8 (D-2)/09, which was also dismissed. Assailing such judgments and conviction, the present revision petition is filed.

9. Before determining the legality of the judgments, let this Court looked into the evidence that were brought on record to prove the guilt of the accused:

(I) PW-1 is the victim. She deposed that she knew the accused well. She deposed that on the date of occurrence when she went out of her house at around 11:00 PM, to respond nature’s call, the accused grabbed her from behind and forcefully took her near to the tube well and had forceful sexual intercourse with her. As the accused showed a dagger and threatened to kill the victim, she did not shout out of fear. When the accused left, she raised hue and cry and then PW-3, Abdul Mazid, one Mahiran and Ahuja came near her. She further deposed that her husband was not at home at that point of time and went to the place of Abdul Awal to enjoy C.D. She further deposed that after an hour, her husband came back and the FIR was lodged.

During cross-examination, she deposed that on the date of occurrence it was a dark-night and season was warm. She deposed that near the place of occurrence only her and her brother-in-law’s houses were situated. At the time of occurrence, brother-in-law’s family members were not present. She further deposed that she has two children. She also re-affirmed during cross-examination that the accused grabbed her from behind and therefore, she did not at first see the accused. She denied the suggestion that there had a quarrel with the accused regarding a well. She also disclosed that the after the incident, the village head brought the accused and his wife to the house of the victim.

(II) PW-2 is the husband of the victim. He deposed that he was not at his home at the time of occurrence and was enjoying the C.D. at the place of Abdul Awal. One Mazid (PW-3) brought him from the house of Awal. When the victim wife informed him regarding the incident, he