Point of Law: There can be a conviction when victim/prosecutrix’s deposition is deemed to be trustworthy, immaculate and credible and her evidence is of pristine quality.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. H Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State of Assam.

2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Sessions Case No.98(K)/2007,sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) months.

3. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an FIR filed by the PW-1 the father of the victim girl. According to FIR, the informant who was hospitalized for some disease, after coming back from the hospital on 07.08.2005 he was informed that at around 2.00 PM on 04.08.2005 when his elder daughter had gone to the back of his house to attend nature’s call, the accused had taken her to a newly built house in the backside of the backyard pulling her by the hand and threatening her if she scream and tried to commit rape on her.

4. On receipt of the said FIR, Sualkuchi PS case No.64/2005 (corresponding to GR Case No.187/2005) under sections 376/511 was registered. Accordingly, investigation was started, the victim was medically examined, her vaginal swabs were taken, the victim’s statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate, the witnesses were examined and thereafter the investigating officer laid charge sheet under section 376 IPC.

5. Thereafter, the committal court committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup to try the case. Charges were framed on 21.09.2007 against the appellant and the charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial was commenced.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution side examined as many as 11 witnesses including the victim as PW-5 and the Doctor who examined the victim. The defence did not led any evidence, however, his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded and finally by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted under section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for another 2 (two) months for the offence committed under section 376 IPC. Assailing such judgment of conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal is filed before this Court.

7. On the basis of the materials available on record, the learned court below convicted the appellant as discussed hereinabove which is under challenge in the present case. Before determining the legality and validity of the aforesaid judgment, let us first consider the deposition of the witnesses.

I. PW-5 Smti. X, the victim (name is withheld as she was a minor at the relevant point of time of commission of offence) deposed that she knows the accused in the dock. In the year 2005 on a particular date at around 2-2.30 pm, when she went to the backyard of her house, suddenly the accused came there, caught hold of her by the hand and dragged her to a half built school nearby. She wanted to shout but the accused gagged her mouth. He raped her therein and thereafter, she came back to her home as her parents were not at home for the reason that her father was at hospital. She informed the matter to her mother after 2 (two) days when her mother came back from hospital. According to her, at the relevant point of time she was reading in class VIII and was aged about 14/15 years. Police asked about the incident and she was examined by the doctor and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. She proved her statement as exhibit-2 and her signature as exhibit-2(1) and 2(2). She submits that subsequently, she was married to another boy. During her cross-examination, she reiterated her statement given during the examination-in-chief and denied the suggestion that she had love affair with th