The court held that a conviction for sexual assault requires consistent and credible evidence from the victim, with any substantial doubt benefiting the accused.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.] 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘the Cr.P.C.’ for short] is preferred by the two appellants by taking exception to a Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj [‘the trial court’ for short] in Sessions Case no. 16 of 2017. In the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, the two accused-appellants:

(i) Sahid Ahmed @ Soid Ahmed [hereinafter also referred to as ‘A-1’ at places, for easy reference] and [ii] Saddam Hussain @ Sadu @ Amir Hussain [hereinafter also referred to as ‘A-2’ at places, for easy reference], faced the charges for the offences described under Section 458, Section 352, and Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. After the trial, the learned trial court found both the accused persons, A-1 and A-2 guilty of the offences under Section 458, Section 352 and Section 376D, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.

2. For the offence under Section 376D, IPC read with Section 34 , IPC, the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 27 [twenty-seven] years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 5 [five] months each. For the offence under Section 458 , IPC read with Section 34 , IPC, the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 [ten] years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 [three] months each. For having committed the offence under Section 352 , IPC read with Section 34 , IPC, the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 [three] months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 7 [seven] days each. The learned trial court has observed that all the sentences are to run concurrently. The learned trial court has further observed that if the fine amounts are realized, then the same shall be paid to the victim.

3. The case, Sessions Case no. 16 of 2017 arose out of Karimganj Police Station Case no. 08 of 2017 and corresponding G.R. Case No. 20/2017. The initiation of investigation of the case, Karimganj Police Station Case no. 08 of 2017 was commenced after registration of a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station on 04.01.2017 in respect of an alleged incident of forcible penetrative sexual assault occurred in the wee hours of 01.01.2017.

4. From the materials on record and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including the testimony of the Investigating Officer [PW-8], the manner in which the investigation progressed and the charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused persons can be narrated, at first.

5. On 02.01.2017, the husband [PW-3] of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj naming the two accused persons herein