JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dtd. 20/9/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Biswanath Chariali convicting the accused, namely, Jiten Sona (Hereinafter referred to as the appellant) under Sec. 448 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 (four) months and pay a fine of Rs.500.00 (Rupees Five Hundred) only with default clause, and under Sec. 354 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) only with default stipulation.

2. The FIR lodged by Smti. 'X' (name withheld) unfolds that on 13/3/2010 at about 6.00 p.m the appellant barged into her house and forcefully committed rape on her. The appellant ripped off her blouse and attempted to stab her with a 'khukuri' (machete type of weapon) which was strapped to his back. The terrified informant ('X') was unable to prevent the appellant from assaulting her and when the appellant left she screamed and her in-laws reached home from the market. The complaint was registered as Biswanath Chariali Police Station Case No. 42/2010 under Ss. 447/376/506 of IPC, and the Investigating Officer (I/O in short) was endorsed with the investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer embarked upon the investigation. He forwarded the victim/informant to the Magistrate, who recorded her statement under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C for short). The victim 'X' was also forwarded for medical examination. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. On finding sufficient materials, charge-sheet was laid against the appellant under Ss. 448/376 of IPC. This case i.e. the GR Case No. 133/2010 and corresponding Biswanath Chariali Police Station Case No. 42/2010 was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge. At the commencement of Trial, a formal charge under Sec. 448/376 of IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant, who abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

4. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 11 (eleven) witnesses including the Medical Officer (M.O in short) and the I/O. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr PC, to enable him to explain the evidence against him and his responses were recorded.

5. It is submitted by Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was erroneously convicted. It is submitted that this case is sans eye witnesses. No case under Sec. 354 of IPC was made out against the appellant. Corroborative evidence is lacking. The victim has not informed about the incident to her family members, immediately after the alleged occurrence. There are no circumstances warranting conviction and the appellant deserves acquittal. It is submitted that the informant's evidence is a diametrically opposite version to her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her FIR.

6. Per contra Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has laid stress in his argument that the decision of the trial Court was in order. The evidence of the prosecutrix will suffice. Eye witnesses are not necessary when the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be credible. He termed the victim as a sterling witness.

7. I have considered the arguments, strenuously submitted by both the sides.

8. The appellant was charged under Sec. 376/448 IPC, but he was held guilty of offence under Sec. 354 IPC.

9. The only question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the learned Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant under Ss. 354/448 IPC.

10. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.10 and P.W.11 depicts that the incident occurred on 15/3/2010.

11. The victim 'X' testified as P.W.3 that on the day of the incident, the appellant, who was inebriated, went to her house and attempted to commit rape on her. He groped her and squeezed her hand and pressed her body. She raised alarm and her father-in-law