RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 25.11.2003 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No. VII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 636 of 2002 arising out of Sadar P.S Case No. 108 of 2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2331 of 2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.

2. The prosecution story, as per the fardbeyan of the informant-Banwari Mahto, father of the victim, as recorded on 26.08.2002, at about 22.00 hrs. is that Raju Thakur was residing in a rented house of Sonelal Mahto at village Buti. On 26.08.2002, at about 6:30 pm he took the victim aged about 4 years to his room and bolted it from inside. He undressed the victim and tried to commit rape. The victim started crying and then the landlady rushed towards the room and other nearby persons also gathered there. They attempted to open the door and saw the victim and the appellant in naked position. It is alleged by the informant that the appellant with an intention to commit rape upon the victim took her inside his room, however, due to the intervention of the landlady and other nearby persons he could not succeed in committing rape.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Sadar P.S Case No. 108 of 2002 was registered under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellant. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet on 21.09.2002 and, accordingly, the court below took cognizance of the offences under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, charge was framed under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant on 18.01.2003.

4. The prosecution, in order of substantiate the allegation, examined altogether ten witnesses. PW-1 Shrikant Tiwari, PW-2 Kashinath Mahto, PW-3 Prem Kumar Sahu, PW-4 Krishna Karmali @ Karmali, PW-5 Meena Devi, PW-6 Aloo Devi, PW-7 Sobha Devi, PW-8 Punam, PW-9 Banwari Mahto, PW-10 H.B. Singh.

5. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C on 18.11.2003 in which he denied the allegation levelled against them.

6. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence laid by the prosecution witnesses and perusing the materials available on record convicted the appellant under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submits that there are material contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses which the Trial Court erroneously ignored while convicting the appellant and as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the victim was a tutored witness and as such her statement cannot be believed. On one hand PW-6 deposed that she had asked the appellant to open the door and thereafter the victim went to her house alone, however, on the other hand, PWs. 5, 8 and 9 deposed that they had also seen the victim in the room of the appellant and on their pressure the appellant opened the door. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant made any attempt to commit rape upon the victim to substantiate the charge under Section 376/511 of IPC.

8. Per contra, learned APP submits that the prosecution sufficiently proved the charge against the appellant and as such he was rightly convicted by the court below. Minor inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would not be fatal if otherwise the offence alleged against the appellant is proved. It is further submitted that independent witnesses have sufficiently supported the prosecution’s case.

9. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned A.P.P. To appreciate the contentions of the parties I have perused the evidence of the witnesses adduced