The court determined that the victim's inconsistent statements indicated mutual consent, leading to the reversal of the conviction under the pre-2013 definition of consent in the IPC.

1. This present appeal has been filed under S.374 of Cr. P.C against impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. S.T. 18 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under S.376(1) of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer R.I for a period of 14 years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- u/S. 376(1) of IPC and with default stipulations.

2. The brief fact of this case is that on 05.07.2011 at around 4.00 pm. the daughter of the informant had gone missing from the house. On 06.07.2011 morning at around 4.15 A.M., he lodged a missing diary with the Maharani Outpost. Subsequently, the informant along with the police recovered the daughter of the informant from Adibasi Colony near Banduar Kaju Badam area. Thereafter, the victim informed the informant that on 05.07.2011 evening at around 7.00 p.m., when she was returning to her house from Maharani bazaar, on her way, at Sanjoymani Tilla, the accused persons wrongfully restrained her and had taken her to the nearby jungle and committed rape upon her one after another.

3. On the receipt of complaint, the O/C R.K.Pur PS registered R.K.Pur PS Case No. 295/2011 under S.376(2)(g) of IPC. On the completion of the investigation, the I/O submitted charge sheet against the appellant under S.341/376(2)(g) of IPC. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under S.313 of CrPC to which he strongly denied the allegations brought against him by the prosecution. But he denied to adduce any defence evidence on his side.

4. The learned Trial Court took up the following points for discussion and decision: -
(i) Whether the accused person namely Shri Suran Lila Jamatia alias Retharaj alias Charanjoy, S/O Late gobinda kishore Jamatia on 05.07.2011 after 1900 hours to morning on 06.07.2011 at Sanjoymani Tilla and Maharani Adibasi Colony near Banduar Kaju Badam area under P/S - R.K.Pur, Sub-Division: Udaipur, District: South Tripura wrongfully restrained the victim and thereby accused committed an offence punishable under S. 341 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this court;
(ii) Whether the accused person namely Shri Suran Lila Jamatia alias Retharai alias Charanjpy, S/O Late Gobinda Kishore Jamatia on 05.07.2011 after 1900 hours to morning on 06.07.2011 at Adibasi Colony near Banduar Kaju Badam area under P/S - R.K.Pur, Sub-Division: Udaipur, District: South Tripura wrongfully restrained the victim and thereby accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix and thereby accused committed an offence punishable under S. 376(1) of the IPC and within the cognizance of this court.

5. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the learned Court below by the impugned Judgment of conviction of sentence dated 29.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 convicted the appellant as mentioned herein above.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the convict - appellant herein has filed this appeal seeking the following reliefs: -
"i) Admit this appeal;
ii) Call for the record;
iii) Issue notice upon the respondent;
and
iv) After hearing the parties be pleased enough to set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2022 and 30.09.2022 respectively passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Sri M. Debbarma), Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in case No. S.T. 18 of 2012, for fair ends of justice otherwise the appellant would be seriously prejudiced and further to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2022 til