In cases of sexual offences, victim testimony must be consistent and credible; inconsistencies necessitate corroborative evidence for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIMA JAHAN, J.

Heard Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. This is a criminal appeal filed against the Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 72/2021 under Section 376 (2)(L) as well as Section 436 of the IPC . By the said Judgment & Order, the appellant was convicted under (1) and was sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo S.I for another period of 1 month. It is this conviction and sentence order that the appellant has challenged in the present appeal.

FACTS

3. The FIR was lodged on 21.03.2021 by the victim disclosing that the appellant was living in a house of his in-laws and that on 20.03.2021 at about 12 noon, when the victim went to the house of the appellant for taking bath at his hand pump, the appellant lured her, took her inside his house and after gagging her mouth, forcibly established physical relationship with her. It was also stated in the FIR that the victim was a physically challenged woman and that after the incident, the victim narrated the same to the neighbouring people and on being informed, the neighbours held a meeting but since the appellant did not appear there, the meeting was not conclusive. It was also stated in the FIR that the appellant transferred his family members to some other place and set his house on fire and that he too fled away from the place of occurrence.

4. The Police on receipt of the FIR registered the case as Morigaon P.S. Case No. 194/2021 under Section 376 (2)(L) as well as Section 436 of the IPC and on completion of the investigation, submitted Charge-sheet against the appellant under the said provisions of law. Thereafter, on completion of necessary requirements, charges were framed against the appellant under the said provisions, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer and upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, to which the appellant denied all the question. The appellant declined to adduce any evidence on his behalf and on completion of the trial, the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Morigaon, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above.

EVIDENCE:

5. PW-1 is the victim and she stated before the Trial Court that in the afternoon hours after she took bath in the house of the appellant, the appellant gagged her mouth and forcibly took her into his house and raped her. She stated that the appellant took her inside his room, laid her on the ground and forcibly established physical relationship with her and thereafter, he drove her out of his house. She also stated that after returning home, she reported the matter to her family members and other villagers and that her husband was not present at that juncture and further that on the next date, she filed the case after a village meeting was held. She also stated that the appellant on the day of occurrence asked her to give the money that she owes him.

6. The victim was cross-examined and during the said examination, she stated that it is not a fact that the appellant did not take her inside his room by gagging her mouth and committing rape upon her. In her cross-examination, she furt