The victim's credible testimony is sufficient for conviction under rape despite lack of medical evidence or hostile witnesses' corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2005 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2004 / Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2004, 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 along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that in the night of 17.05.2003 the prosecutrix was sleeping in her house along with her two children and her husband had gone to fetch medicine from Village - Ghanjori. It is further stated that at about 11:00 PM, she went out of the house for easing herself, meanwhile, accused Uttam Pandit entered into her room and she identified him in the torch light. She tried to raise alarm, but the accused caught hold of her hand, gaged her mouth and pushed on the cot. The informant resisted then accused threatened her to kill and forcibly committed rape with her. It is further alleged that brother-in-law of the informant woke up hearing some sound of scuffle and raised alarm then some villagers assembled, but the accused managed to escape taking advantage of darkness of night. She also narrated the story to her father-in-law and villagers. The matter could not be resolved in pacific manner by the villagers then after arrival of her husband, the prosecutrix lodged the F.I.R. on 22.05.2023.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the above-named sole accused, who faced the trial and has been held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that in the instant case, the victim lady is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence as per F.I.R, but in her evidence on oath, during trial, she has stated that after hearing hulla, her brother-in-law Bibhuti Pandit also woke up and bolted the door from the outside and raised alarm. The door was opened after villagers assembled at the place of occurrence. It is very strange to believe that inspite of bolted door from outside, accused managed to flee away from the place of occurrence in presence of several villagers. The prosecution has also relied upon convening of Panchayati, which consumed 4-5 days, but not a single witness has been examined to prove the Panchayati. In medical report of the victim, no sign of recent sexual inter-course was found. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case under deep rooted conspiracy between prosecutrix and her brother-in-law. The appellant is absolutely innocent. The evidence of victim is also not reliable in view of fact that her brother-in-law Bibhuti Pandit had been declared hostile in this case and expressed no knowledge about the occurrence. The learned trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the entire evidence available on record and arrived at wrong conclusion, which is fit to be set aside, by allowing this appeal.

6. In alternative, it is pleaded that throughout the trial, the appellant was in judicial custody and was released on bail vide order dated 12.01.2007 and about 3‰ years, sentence has already been undergone by the appellant. Under circumstances of the case, appellant has been sufficiently punished. Hence, his sentence may be reduced to the imprisonment already undergone.

7. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appel