The conviction for rape requires credible testimony from the prosecutrix, supported by medical evidence; inconsistencies can warrant acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon in Sessions Case No. 95/2015, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded during trial in short is that one Kushal Deka on 22.03.2014 lodged an FIR before the O/C Sualkuchi P.S. against Nitul Sarmah and Debajit Sarmah inter alia stating that on 21.03.2014, at around 6.30 pm, the daughter of the informant 'X', aged 27 years along with one Putuli Deka had gone to the Sualkuchi market and at that time, they were kidnapped by the FIR named accused persons in a four wheeler vehicle and accused No.1 Nitul Sarmah with the assistance of accused No.2 committed rape upon his daughter and thereafter, left her at Sualkuchi Bhagyashree road in unconscious state. The informant accordingly prayed to take necessary action.

4. On the basis of the above FIR, O/C Sualkuchi P.S. registered Sualkuchi P.S. Case No. 27/14 under Sections 365/376/34 IPC and entrusted S.I. B. Deuri to investigate the case. The I.O during the course of investigation arrested the accused persons, recorded the statements of the victim/prosecutrix and other witnesses, medically examined the prosecutrix, collected the medical report as well as the FSL report, seized the vehicle, prepared sketch map and also recorded the 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim and another witnesses through the learned Magistrate and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 366/376/34 IPC.

5. On being committed, the learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused Nitul Sarmah under Sections 366/376 of IPC and against accused Debajit Sarmah under Sections 366/34 of IPC. On being read over and explained, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused persons has examined altogether 10 PWs including the M.O and I.O. Section 313 Cr. PC statements of the accused persons were recorded.

7. PW-1/Prosecutrix deposed during her evidence before the Court on 28.07.2016 that the informant is her father and she knows the accused persons of this case. She deposed that her age is 27 years and on 21.03.2014 her neighbor Putuli, came to her house and asked her to accompany her to the Sualkuchi bazar, at about 6.30 pm in the evening to purchase a recharge voucher and she accompanied her and they went in the direction of the road in front of Saraswati Bhawan. She deposed that the card shop was at a little distance from the Saraswati Bhawan and at that time, the accused persons came in an Eon vehicle and stopped near them and then Putuli said that she will go to see the under construction house of the accused Debajit and she boarded that vehicle and also made her board that vehicle and at that time, she could recognize both the accused persons who were in the vehicle.

She further deposed that accordingly they went in the vehicle to the under construction house of the accused Debajit in Bongshor and at the time, it was evening. She further deposed that fro