In rape cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the victim's inconsistent testimony undermines the credibility of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.S. Laskar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 21 (BGN) of 2021, convicting Sri Sunil Sutradhar @ Dhanjit (hereinafter also referred to as the accused or the appellant) under Section 341/376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) and, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (One) month under Section 341 of IPC and, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 (Ten) years under Section 376 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only with default stipulation.

3. The genesis of the case was that on 28.12.2020 while the victim (hereinafter also referred to as the X) was returning home from Bongaigaon the appellant wrongfully restrained the victim at Dangtol and made obscene gestures towards her. He also threatened to kill her and compelled her to accompany him to a hotel at Bongaigaon. In the hotel, he forcefully committed rape on the victim X and clicked some nude pictures with his mobile phone. He threatened the victim X not to divulge about the incident lest he would kill her parents. On 02.02.2021, victim’s marriage was solemnized with Y, who hails from Bijni, Gosaigaon.

4. As the appellant was sending obscene photographs to her mobile, the victim’s husband learnt about the incident and informed the victim’s (X’s) parents about the incident. The appellant had also threatened to upload the pictures through social networking sites. An ejahar (FIR) regarding this incident was lodged by the victim X, which was registered as Bongaigaon Police Station Case No. 511/2021 under Section 341/376 of IPC. The Investigating Officer (IO for short) embarked upon the investigation. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and forwarded the victim for medical examination and for recording her statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short). On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the appellant. At the commencement of trial, a formal charge under Section 341/376 of IPC was framed and read over and explained to the appellant to which he abjured his guilt and claimed innocence.

5. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence 7 (Seven) witnesses including the IO and Medical Officer (MO for short). On the incriminating circumstances against the appellant projected by the prosecution witnesses several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. The plea of the appellant was of total denial.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had a love relationship with the victim X since 2017. The victim got engaged to Y and later, her marriage was solemnized with Y. Her relationship before her marriage was consensual with the appellant. It has been falsely alleged that the appellant forcefully committed rape on the victim. The evidence clearly reveals that the victim on her own volition went with the appellant to the hotel. The evidence of the hotel employee, PW-5 clearly reveals that the victim and the appellant identified themselves as husband and wife and booked a room for 2-3 hours. The Trial Court has relied on the sole testimony of the victim and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant had committed rape on the victim.

7. The cross-examination of the victim clearly reveals that there was no wrongful restraint or pressure exercised by the appellant, compelling the victim to accompany him to the hotel at Bongaigon. Even the evidence of the victim’s mother Z as PW-3 clearly reveals that she did not notice any unnatural behaviour on the relevant day when the victim returned home. Major contradictions could be elicited through the cross examination of the victim vis-à-vis