JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. This revision was initiated suo motu vide order dated 05.03.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 254/2004 wherein this Court in Para 6 of the judgment & order observed that:

“6. Section 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction suo motu and while exercising such jurisdiction, Section 397 Cr.P.C. allows the High Court to examine the record of any proceeding for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Thus, as indicated hereinbefore, this Court is duty bound, as a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction, that a finding, which is incorrect, be not allowed to remain good on record. The duty, so imposed by the statute, cannot be avoided from being exercised by the High Court on the ground that the matter has come to the notice of the High Court from an appeal, which has been preferred by the accused against his conviction in respect of an offence other than one, which he has been acquitted of.”

3. Notices were issued to Jagannath Das (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), to show cause, if any, as to why finding of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court in respect of the charge framed against him under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) be not set aside and the whole proceeding be not remanded to the learned trial Court with direction to take into account the unchallenged evidence of the prosecutrix, and render its finding in accordance with law. The Criminal Appeal No. 254/2004 was converted to this present Revision Petition No. 125/2012, pursuant to the Order dated 05.03.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 254/2004.

4. The genesis of the case was that the prosecutrix (name withheld and herein after referred to as X) was acquainted with Shri Jagannath Das (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner). On 18.02.2002, taking advantage of the absence of her parents, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with X with promises to marry her. She was impregnated by the petitioner but he refused to marry her and forced her to undergo abortion by threatening her. A village “Mel” was organized on 25.11.2001 to settle the matter but the petitioner and his relatives refused any kind of settlement. This impelled the prosecutrix X to enter into the house of the petitioner on 25.11.2001 but Sri Hari Sankar Das, Sri Gopal Das, Sri Manindra Das, Sri Kananbala Das, Smt. Pratima Das, Smt. Bhanu Das assaulted X at the behest of Sri Ramagya Prasad Das and Sri Paresh Paul. An FIR was lodged and X was forwarded to Udali P.S. and thereafter to Lanka P.S. for medical examination, but the police ignored the first FIR and the endeavours of the local people to settle the matter were not fruitful.

5. The present FIR was lodged on 18.02.2002 i.e. after 6/7 months of the incident. This FIR was registered as Lanka PS. Case No. 14/2002 under Sections 143/323/376/493/313 IPC. The Investigating Officer (IO for short) embarked upon the investigation and forwarded the victim to Nagaon Civil Hospital. The victim was also forwarded to the Court to record her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short). On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner under Sections 143/323/493/313/376 IPC and against the other accused Sri Hari Sankar Das, Sri Gopal Das, Sri Manindra Das, Sri Kananbala Das, Smt. Pratima Das, Smt. Bhanu Das, Sri Sagar Das, Sri Ramagya Prasad Das and Sri Paresh Paul under Sections 143/341/323 IPC. All the accused persons entered appearance at the commencement of trial. A formal charge under Sections 143/323/376(1)/417/313 IPC was framed and read over to the petitioner and charge under Sections 143/323 IPC was framed and read over to the other