Point of Law: Evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient proof of sexual assault against perpetrator of crime, but in this case benefit of doubt has to be extended to accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Amcus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta convicting the appellant, namely, Delbar Ali (herein after the accused) under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and under Section 341 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for 6(six) months. The sentences are to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded from the FIR is that on 23.08.2018 at around 11.30 P.M. ‘X’ (name withheld), aged 31 years and mentally challenged was returning home from a function, when the accused waylaid her, gagged her by mouth and dragged her to the field, and repeatedly committed rape on her against her will and abandoned her in the field. The victim ‘X’ was bleeding profusely but she managed to reach home. The accused confessed that he committed rape on the victim. The younger brother victim ‘X’ lodged the FIR, which was registered as Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 426/2018, registered under Section 341/376 IPC and investigation commenced. The victim was forwarded to the Medical Officer and to the Magistrate. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet laid against the accused and this case was committed for trial. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Sections 341/376 IPC was framed and read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 7(seven) witnesses including the Medical Officer (M.O. for short) and the Investigating Officer (I.O for short). The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and his tenor of answers depicts that his plea was of total denial.

4. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Dr. B.N. Gogoi, laid stress in his argument that the FIR clearly reveals that the victim is mentally challenged and conviction was not justified because the trial Court relied on the sole evidence of the victim. There were no eyewitnesses to the incident. The victim was 31 years old, whereas, the accused was only 26 years old. The trial Court ignored the fact that the incident occurred at night and the victim has categorically stated that it was dark. Identification of the accused was not possible at night? If she was alone then why was she alone at night? It is also submitted that the medical evidence reveals that the victim did not sustain any injuries of sexual assault.

5. Per contra, the learned Addl. P.P. laid stress in his argument that the victim was mentally challenged and her evidence cannot be discarded. Her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3. Corroboration is not sinequanonin a rape case. The incident occurred at midnight and immediately on the following day, the FIR was lodged. No sign of sexual assault could be detected as the victim took bath after the incident.

6. The trial Court decided this case on the following points:-

“(1) Whether the accused on 23.08.2018, at about 11:30 P.M., at Kalahbhanga, within the jurisdiction of Barpeta Road P.S., District Barpeta, restrained Jahanara Begum (mentally ill), who is the elder sister of the informant Abdul Hannan, on the road when she was returning home after enjoying a function and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 341 of the Indian Penal Code?

(2) Whether the accused, on the same date, time and place as mentioned above, committed rape on Hanara Begum and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code?”

The learned trial Court convicted the accused relying on the evidence of the victim.

7. The question that falls for consideration is that whether the trial Court erred while convicting the accused under Section 341/376 IPC.

8. In this case at hand, the