Point of Law: It is well settled that on basis of sole testimony of a victim of sexual offence, a person can be convicted without any further corroboration, but such testimony must be of sterling quality.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B Baruah, 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 17.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri in Sessions (II) Case No.49/2021, corresponding to GR Case No.1032/2019 arising out of Kalaigaon PS Case No.85/2019 under sections 448/376 IPC.

3. The prosecution was launched on the basis of an FIR lodged by the informant/victim by alleging that on 03.10.2019, while her husband was not at home, then at about 11 am, the accused taking the advantage of absence of other family members entered into the residence of the informant and made an attempt to outrage her modesty.

4. On receipt of the said FIR, Kalaigaon PS case No.85/2019 under sections 448/376 was registered. Accordingly, investigation was started and thereafter charge sheet was filed under section 448/376 IPC against the accused appellant.

5. Thereafter the committal court committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri to try the case. Charges were framed on 25.11.2021 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 5 witnesses including the victim as PW-1 and the Doctor who examined the victim. The accused 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 448/376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence committed under section 448 IPC and Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default for another 2 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. Before determining the legality and validity of the judgment impugned, let this court first analyse the deposition of the witnesses who were examined to bring home the charges against the appellant.

I. PW-1, the victim in her deposition stated that on the fateful day at about 11.00 am, the accused entered into her residence and forcefully raped her. On that point of time, her husband was away from the residence. She raised alarm and when the neighbouring people came, the accused fled away. Accordingly, on the advice of the village people the FIR was lodged. She further deposed that she was produced before the Magistrate and got her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. She also exhibited the FIR as Exhibit – 1 and her statement recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C., as exhibit – 2. She also proved her signature. During her cross-examination she deposed that the house of the accused is situated nearby her residence and the accused raped her for about half an hour. After hearing her alarm 10-15 persons including one Ainuddin and Abdullah came to her residence, although they did not witness the occurrence. She admitted that the FIR was lodged after 6 days from the date of occurrence. During her cross examination, she further deposed that on the day of occurrence her husband was in Guwahati.

II. PW-2 Maleka Khatun is another neighbour of the victim. In her examination-in-chief she deposed that at the relevant point of time she went to the house of the victim and saw the incident. She deposed that the accused and the informant were committing illegal act inside the house of the informant. According to her, after seeing the illegal act she returned back and her statement was also recorded. During cross examination she deposed that she could not identify the male person who was committing the illegal act with the informant. She further deposed during her cross examination that she did not restrai