Significant inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, lack of corroborative evidence, and procedural errors undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case in rape convictions.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13th day of September, 2024 pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, (FTC-2) Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 13 (T) of 2021) arising out of Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 739/2019, convicting the appellant under Section 376 , IPC and sentencing him toundergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for his offence u/s. 376 , and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for another 6 months. The fine amount, if realised, was to be paid to the victim. The accused was entitled to have the previous custodial period set off against the total period of conviction, as per section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution's case was that in December 2018, when the victim, the daughter of the informant, went to stay in the house of the accused, the accused established a physical relationship with her by alluring her. It is further stated that the victim became pregnant as a result of the physical relationship established. The father of the victim had lodged an FIR, and Tinsukia P.S. case No. 739/2019 u/s 376 IPC was registered against the accused. On completion of the investigation, the I.0. submitted a charge sheet against the accused Uttam Das u/s. 376 .

3. Formal charge against the accused under section 376 IPC vide was framed by order dated 05/01/2022. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side adduced evidence from four witnesses. The defence plea was one of total denial, and the defence did not adduce evidence.

4. Learned Trial Court framed the following point for determination:

(i) Whether the accused in this case, in December 2018 at Mission Para under Tinsukia P.S., committed rape on the victim Kumari Riya Verma, the daughter of the informant, against her will and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 376 IPC ?

5. As noted above, the Learned Trial Court held the answer to the point of determination in the affirmative, convicted the accused, and passed sentence. The appellant herein has assailed this finding of the Learned Trial Court.

6. Evidence Led By The Prosecution:

PW1:

The victim of this case deposed as the PW1. She has stated that the informant is her father and the accused is her uncle. She has stated that the incident took place in December 2018 at the accused's house. The victim has stated that 3/4 days before the incident, she visited the house of one of their relatives in Dibrugarh, and at the invitation of the accused and her cousin, she went to the house of the accused at Tinsukia. She has stated that on the first day, she slept with the son of the accused in a room where there was no door. At night, when the son of the accused had left the room, the accused came to her sleeping room and touched different parts of her body and also asked for a kiss. The victim resisted and said that she would report the matter to her mother and to the police. But the accused gagged her mouth with his hand and committed rape on her and left the room. In the coming days, as per the victim, the accused used to give her chocolate and tried to feed her forcibly. She stated that after about 3 /4 days, when she was sleeping in the room, the accused had physical intercourse with her without her knowledge. She has stated that the next morning, she felt some physical pain in her vagina. The victim has stated that the accused repeated the same incident against her for a few days. She returned home after about 15/20 days, and her menstrual cycle had stopped. Her mother took her for a medical check-up, where she was detected to be pregnant, and then