IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a victim's testimony, especially from a minor, can suffice for conviction in sexual assault cases, even without medical corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

Mitali Thakuria, J.

Heard Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 11 (NL)/2010, convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376(f)/511/448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only in default of payment of fine to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence under Section 376(f)/511 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) days for the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.11.2007, one Md. Saibur Rahman lodged an F.I.R. before the Nowboicha Police Outpost alleging inter alia that on 07.11.2007, at about 4.00 p.m., while his minor granddaughter (victim), aged about 8 years, was alone in the house, the accused- Md. Nizam Ali entered into the house and committed rape on her by gagging her mouth. Upon receipt of the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge of Nowboicha Police Outpost forwarded the same to the Officer-In-Charge, North Lakhimpur Police Station and accordingly North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 745/2007, under Sections 448/376(f) of the Indian Penal Code, was registered and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Charge-Sheet against the present accused/ appellant under Sections 448/376(f)/511 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, after considering the materials available on record and also finding prima facie case, framed charge against the present accused/appellant under the aforesaid Sections, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) numbers of witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigation Officers and the defence also examined 3 (three) numbers of witnesses in support of their case. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, after hearing the parties and on perusal of records, vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2012, in Sessions Case No. 11 (NL)/2010, convicted the accused/appellant under Section 376(f)/511/448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only in default of payment of fine to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) months for the offence under Section 376(f)/511 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days with fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only in default Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) days for the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Sessions Case No. 11 (NL)/2010, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant.

7. Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Court below did not consider the evidence on record in its true perspective and arrived at a wrong decision which is bad in law and liable to be set aside and quashed. He further submitted that there is absolutely no ingredients of Sections 376(f)/511 IPC and on the facts and circumstances of the evidence on record, it may be a case under Section 354 IPC and as such, the i