A criminal conviction based solely on the testimony of a victim is unsustainable when that testimony suffers from substantial material inconsistencies, lacks independent medical corroboration, and is subsequently retracted by the complainant, thereby failing to satisfy the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, and Ms. R. D. Mojumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2] This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), in Sessions Case No. 88/2017, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 341/376 of the IPC and was sentenced under of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “”) to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month and under Section 376 of the to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 25 (twenty five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand); in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.

3] The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24/02/2017, the victim lodged an FIR at Dhemaji Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 23/02/2017 she arrived at Dhemaji Railway Station from Jonai by train, thereafter boarded a tempo, and got down at Forest Tiniali. At about 7:00 PM, while she was proceeding alone through a field on her way home, the accused/appellant, allegedly caught hold of her, threw her to the ground, forcibly removed her wearing apparel, and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that after the incident, the accused told her that he had enjoyed it, challenged her to do whatever she wished, and then fled the place. It is also the prosecution case that on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 07/01/2017, when the victim met the accused on the road, he allegedly pulled her hair, tore the sporting garment she was wearing, and squeezed her neck, in respect of which she had lodged an ejahar before the police station. However, the said matter was subsequently compromised, as both the victim and the accused belonged to the same village and were related as brother and sister in the social sense.

4] On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-in-Charge of Dhemaji P.S. registered a case being Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 55/2017 under Sections 341/376 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused/appellant was put to trial.

5] Charges under Sections 341/376 of the IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6] The prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses including the victim, her brothers and sister, the medical officer who examined her, and the investigating officer. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances; however, he did not adduce any evidence. Upon hearing the parties, the trial court convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him thereof. Situated thus, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

7] Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that except for the victim, there is no other evidence against the accused/appellant. He further submits that the victim by filing an affidavit before this court in the connected interlocutory application, i.e., I.A. (Crl) No. 132/2026, which was disposed of by this court on 31.03.2026, has turned her back on her deposition adduced before the trial court, which is to the effect that she was raped by the accused/appellant. He further submits that the medical evidence supports her stand taken in the affidavit before this court to the effect that the there was no rape committed on her. He accordingly submits that the prosecution having not proved the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law.

8] Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly s