IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement for the victim's testimony to inspire confidence and be trustworthy in cases of sexual assault, and the need for corroborating evidence to affirm conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. T. Begum, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No.154/2011 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 366(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment to undergo R.I. for 4(four) months.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, one Hareswar Das lodged an FIR on 23.03.2011 before the Officer-in-Charge, Goalpara Police Station alleging inter-alia that his wife Mrs. Rasomoni Das along with his minor daughter have been kidnapped on 20.03.2011 at about 8.30 A.M. After receipt of the FIR, the case was registered as Goalpara P. S. Case No.110/2011 under Section 366 of IPC. During the investigation public recovered the victim and his minor daughter and accordingly, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the present petitioner under Section 366 of IPC. Thereafter, the learned Munsiff Magistrate, No.-1, Goalpara committed the case (G.R. Case No.495/2011) under Section 366 of IPC) before the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara. The learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara transferred the case record to the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara for trial. Accordingly, after hearing the matter, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara framed charge against the accused/appellant under Section 366 of IPC which was read over and explained and to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 7(Seven) witnesses and exhibited documents, but, the accused/appellant did not adduced any evidence and he pleaded not guilty while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, hearing the parties at length and considering the evidence on record, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara passed the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2012, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 366 A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5(five) years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only and in default R.I. for another 4(four) months.

5. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No.154/2011, the present appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Ms. Begum, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective and thus, came to a perverse finding by convicting the accused/appellant under Section 366 A of IPC. The said Court also failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged victim went with the appellant as per her own will and wish and at the relevant time of the incident the victim aged was about 31 years and she stayed with the accused/appellant for about 6/7 days without any objection nor she filed any complaint against the accused/appellant.

Thus, it is seen that the victim was a consenting party who went and stayed with the accused/appellant on her own will and only to save herself from social harassment she lodged the FIR with some false and concocted allegation against the accused/appellant. Accordingly, it is submitted that the judgment and Order dated 21.05.2012 as well as the finding of the learned Trial Court is erroneous and caused injustice to the accused/appellant and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

7. She also submitted that the FIR was lodged only after 3 days of the occurrence. Also from the statement made by the victim, it is seen that she herself went to the Kabaitari Market to meet the a