The court affirmed that witness testimony can uphold a conviction despite the lack of medical evidence, emphasizing the quality over the quantity of evidence.

1. In this appeal, the appellant is questioning the legality of the judgment dated 9-7-2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in ST No. 64(ST / A) of 2013 convicting him under S.376(1), IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21-10-2012 at about 5 p.m., one Ganga Nama invited the minor daughter of the informant to witness the Durga Puja, but when she did not return early, her mother (wife of the informant) became worried and went to look for her. In the course of her search, she found her daughter lying on the ground and her wearing apparel in a torn condition. The appellant, on seeing her, gave her a fist blow on her head whereupon she collapsed on the ground and raised alarm. In the meantime, the informant was informed by Ganga Nama that his wife was lying on the ground. When he rushed there, he found his wife (PW - 13) lying on the ground, but the prosecutrix was not there. On regaining her sense, PW - 13 told him that after giving blow to her, the appellant took her daughter to the jungle. They then started to look for the prosecutrix. After making vigorous search, they found her daughter lying on the ground near J.B. School at Namapara. By this time, the people of their locality had come to see their daughter, who then disclosed to them that the appellant had raped her after tearing her wearing apparels. The informant (PW - 12) then lodged the FIR with the Officer - in - Charge of Birganj Police Station, who registered a regular case being BRG PS Case No. 114 of 2012 U/S. 376, IPC . On the basis of the FIR, the police swung into investigation and, after investigation, charge - sheeted the appellant u/S. 376(1), to face the trial. On commitment, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant u/S. 376(1), , to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and exhibited eight documents to prove the charge framed against the appellant. The case of the appellant is that of total denial of the charge. After examining the appellant u/S. 313, Cr.P.C., the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated earlier.

4. Mr. Sankar Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the appellant, attacks the impugned judgment by submitting that in the absence of medical evidence to substantiate the charge of rape, which is the case here, the trial court has erroneously convicted the appellant. He contends that when the material and independent witnesses have all turned hostile, the evidence of interested and related witnesses alone such as PW - 12, PW - 14 cannot be used to convict the appellant. Great emphasis was laid by the learned counsel on the non - examination of the said Ganga Nama, who is alleged to have taken out the prosecutrix; withholding of this evidence alone, according to the learned counsel, is sufficient to render the entire case of the prosecution suspect and vitiates the conviction. In our opinion, we do not find any reason for interfering with the findings and conclusions of the trial in returning a verdict of guilty against the appellant. However, to allay the apprehension of the appellant that he was convicted without adequate evidence, we proceeded to re - appreciate the evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW - 13. The age of PW - 13 was recorded as 14 years at the time of taking her evidence, i.e. 21-2-2014. Since the incident took place in the year 2012, she must have been about 12 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, it can be safe