The testimony of a prosecutrix can be accepted without corroboration, but when the court finds it difficult to accept her version, there is a requirement for direct or circumstantial evidence to lend assurance to her testimony.

ARINDAM LODH, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur in ST 27(ST/U) of 2014 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, i.d. to suffer SI for six months under Section 376(1) of IPC.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under:

One Sambhu Kr. Jamatia (PW4), father of the prosecutrix “Puspa” (name withheld) lodged a complaint on 22.01.2014 to the Officer-in-charge of the Killa PS, Gomati District stating inter alia that on last 13th January, 2014, at about 9 O’Clock night on the occasion of Poush Sankranti his younger daughter “X” (name withheld) (PW5) aged about 16+ years together with some of her friends had visited the house of Malindra Jamatia who is a resident of Habukmabari and in that meanwhile, one Shib Kr. Jamatia, accused-appellant No.1 entering into the said house had attacked the friends and he had taken away his daughter forcibly. The said accused took his daughter to an abandoned place and after that he along with another Ananda Kirti Jamatia, accused-appellant No.2 had raped “Puspa” forcibly and thereafter had set her free. Later on, knowing the incident he had appeared before the village chakdiri (Head of village) for proper conciliation. But even after making conciliation by the village chakdiri for two times no proper conciliation was found. As such being helpless, he prayed before the concerned police authority for appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

3. On receipt of the said written complaint/ejahar, the OC Killa P.S. registered an FIR being 02/2014 dated 22.01.2014 under Section 376(d) of the IPC (Exhibit-P 1/1). The Officer-in-charge Bipin Debbarma (PW9) himself took up the investigation and he visited the place of occurrence, prepared the hand sketch map, seized school certificate of the victim prosecutrix by preparing seizure list (Exhibit-2 series). He also recorded the statements of witnesses and arrested the two accused persons, arranged medical examination of the victim girl and also collected the medical report accordingly. The said investigating officer also ensured the recording of the statement of the victim under Section 164(5) of the CrPC. After that, on his transfer, the investigation was handed over to one Manik Lal Nandi (PW10) who after taking up the investigation recorded the statement of Dr. Manik Jamatia (PW3) and after completion of investigation, being satisfied with the prima facie evidence against the accused appellants, submitted chargesheet against both of them under Section 376(d)/120B of the IPC.

4. After being committed, the learned Sessions Judge on perusal of the police report and other materials on record found prima-facie case against both the accused persons and accordingly charge was framed against them under Sections 376(d) of IPC. But according to the leaned trial court no case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC was made out against them. Accordingly, the accused were absolved from that charge.

5. The charge framed by the learned trial judge is reproduced below in verbatim:

“I, Sri A.Pal, Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, do hereby charge you:-

Sri Shib Sankar Jamatia

Sri Ananda Kirti Jamatia

As follows:-

That on 14.01.2014 at about 0300 hours to 0330 hours both of you at Habukma Kami in the rubber plantation to the nearby the house of Sri Malindra Jamatia and in the house of Kunja Dayal Jamatia under P.S.-Killa, Dist- Gomati Tripura, committed gang rape upon Miss. Ranjita Rani Jamatia and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376-D of I.P.C. and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges by this court.”

In response to the above noted charge, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. Learned Sessions Judge after going through the records decided to determine the c