The conviction for rape can be overturned if the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the lack of consent, particularly when the victim's own statements indicate a consensual relationship.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant Navneet Sahay as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Mr. V.K. Vashishta assisted by learned counsel for the informant Mr. Madhav Prasad.

2. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 17.06.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No. 10 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of seven years.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Dumbi Gagrai (father of the informant) lodged the F.I.R. on 20.09.2004 stating inter alia that on 14.09.2004 in the night while his minor daughter aged about 14 years was sleeping in her room along with her younger brother aged about eight years and informant was sleeping in another room. The appellant who have concealed himself in the room of his daughter suddenly he caught hold the victim girl, threatened her to kill and forcibly committed rape upon her in the night at about 10:00 hours. It is further alleged that due to fear, the victim girl did not disclose about the above occurrence, but on 17.09.2004, she told to her mother and after getting informant about the occurrence, he asked the accused about the occurrence, then he admitted his guilt and he asked informant to solemnize marriage of the victim with him. It is further alleged that the accused was uncle of the victim girl in village relation and is a widower, hence he declined to perform marriage of his daughter with the accused. The informant after consultation with village Munda Bhimsen Bari and his family members lodged a written report about the occurrence.On the basis of written complaint Jhinkpani P.S. case No. 33 of 2004 (Exhibit-6) dated 20.09.2004 was registered for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. The charge of investigation was given to S.I. Arun Kumar Singh who after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 376 /452 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and trial proceeded against the present appellant due to denial from charges and trial.

4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidences were also adduced:-

Exhibit-1:- Signature of Dumbi Gagrai (informant) in the written report.

Exhibit-2:- Writing and signature of Gangaram Bari in the written report.

Exhibit-3:- Signature of Dr. Sujata Jha on the examination report of the victim.

Exhibit-4:- Medical examination report of victim girl.

Exhibit-5:- Endorsement on the written report.

Exhibit-6:- Formal F.I.R.

5. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication.However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

6. The learned trial court after evaluating the prosecution evidence arrived at conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has failed to properly assess the age of the victim girl and only on the basis of his own analysis and imagination. No school certificate of the victim girl has been brought on record. The victim girl was examined by two doctors i.e. P.W.8 (Dr. Sujata Jha) and P.W.9 (Dr. Neeru Jha) who were