5. To substantiate its stance, the prosecution adduced the evidence 7 (Seven) witnesses including the IO and Medical Officer (MO for short). On the incriminating circumstances against the appellant projected by the prosecution witnesses several questions were asked to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC. The plea of the appellant was of total denial.

6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had a love relationship with the victim X since 2017. The victim got engaged to Y and later, her marriage was solemnized with Y. Her relationship before her marriage was consensual with the appellant. It has been falsely alleged that the appellant forcefully committed rape on the victim. The evidence clearly reveals that the victim on her own volition went with the appellant to the hotel. The evidence of the hotel employee, PW-5 clearly reveals that the victim and the appellant identified themselves as husband and wife and booked a room for 2-3 hours. The Trial Court has relied on the sole testimony of the victim and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant had committed rape on the victim.

7. The cross-examination of the victim clearly reveals that there was no wrongful restraint or pressure exercised by the appellant, compelling the victim to accompany him to the hotel at Bongaigon. Even the evidence of the victim’s mother Z as PW-3 clearly reveals that she did not notice any unnatural behaviour on the relevant day when the victim returned home. Major contradictions could be elicited through the cross examination of the victim vis-à-vis the cross-examination of the IO which clearly reveals that the victim is not a sterling witness as she has vacillated from her earlier statement.

8. This extends a benefit of doubt to the appellant. The victim’s statement that she kept mum about the incident of rape as she was terrified of the appellant is not credible because the appellant cannot be considered to be such a formidable person nor did he have any criminal antecedents.

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.S. Laskar and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya have disagreed with the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.

10. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.

11. After appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant and the victim earlier had a love relationship after they got acquainted with each other through Facebook. During their relationship, the appellant pressurized the victim to send nude photographs and as she was in love with the appellant, the victim sent nude photographs to the appellant. Taking advantage of these photographs, the appellant started to blackmail the victim. After a period of time, the relationship between the appellant and the victim (X) turned sour. Meanwhile, the victim X got engaged to Y on 02.12.2020 and finally their marriage was solemnized on 02.02.2021.

12. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that after the ring ceremony on 02.12.2020, the appellant started disturbing the victim X by threatening her to upload the nude photographs in the Facebook. The learned Trial Court has also held that there is cogent evidence that on 28.12.2020 at about 3:00 PM, the appellant compelled the victim to alight from the auto-rickshaw in which she was travelling and, forcefully took her on his scooty with threats like killing her parents and uploading her obscene pictures to a hotel near Bongaigaon Police Station and forcefully committed rape on her. It has been held by the learned Trial Court that no contradictions could be elicited to rebut the robust evidence.

13. The learned Trial Court has discarded and rejected the submission of consensual relationship between ‘X’ and the appellant by holding that the victim already got engaged to Y on 02.12.2020 before the incident which took place on 28.12.2020 and this reveals that the victim X had already ma