1. The judgment and order dated 25.09.2020/28.09.2020 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mathabhanga, Cooch Behar in connection with Sessions Case No. 151 of 2016 pertaining Sessions trial no. 24(iii) 2016 u/s 376/448/506 of IPC was challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that the evidence of the victim lady is unreliable and the evidence of other witnesses including PW 2 cannot be relied upon since they did not see the appellant to commit the crime. The judgment was also challenged on the ground that the Learned Trial Court did not consider the defence argument, that the appellant was falsely implicated over monetary transactions since the appellant used to work under the husband of the victim lady. The medical report does not support the story of rape since the doctor did not find any injury on the private parts of the victim. The deposition of PW 2, the grandmother of the husband of the victim, cannot be relied upon since she was not interrogated by the police during investigation and what she stated before the Learned Trial Court, the same was nothing but an effort to improve the prosecution case during trial. Although the evidence discloses that the facility of electricity was available at the place of occurrence, PW 2 indicated about the lighting of the lamp which creates doubt whether PW 2 was present at the spot or not. Furthermore, PW 2 has admitted that she had poor eyesight, and therefore it is difficult to believe that PW 2 was able to identify the present appellant on the spot by her poor eyesight.

2. Mr. Saha Poddar has relied upon two judgments reported in 2013 4 SCC 206 State of Rajasthan Vs. Babu Mina Paragraphs 9 and 10 of 2026 INSC 830, Ram Singh Vs. State of Himachal paragraphs 11,12,15.

3. Ms. Agarwal appearing for the state has categorically submitted that the impugned judgment was passed by the Learned Trial Judge after considering all aspects of the matter. She has further argued that if the evidence of the victim of rape inspires confidence, there is no need for further corroboration of the allegation made by the victim. In this case the victim has categorically stated not only before the Trial court but she had also stated before the Judicial Magistrate who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The FIR was lodged soon after the alleged incident and there is no chance of manipulation. She has been medically examined and although no mark of injury was found by the doctor, Learned Trial Judge had very rightly considered the circumstances and had rightly come to a proper conclusion.

4. Ms. Agarwal has referred to a judgment reported in 2026 INSC 290 State of Himachal Vs. Hakimchand Alias Manu in support of her contention that the allegation of rape is a serious one and the evidence of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to convict the accused. On the basis of the victim's sole evidence the offence can be said to have been established. The evidence of others only to add further credence to the statement of the victim.

5. I have gone through the judgment of the Learned Trial Judge. But before delving into the matter in further, I would like to highlight the factual matrix of this case. The victim filed a written complaint to the OC, Shitalkuchi Police Station at 21stAugust 2014 stating that on 20.08.2014 at about 8/9 p.m in the absence of her husband the accused person came to their house and borrowed the iron wire to catch fish from her mother in law and thereafter, he went away. She went to bed in the night. Around 10:30/11:00 pm she went out of the house to attain nature’s call and on entering her room, the appellant grabbed her with his hands and pressed her mouth so that she could not raise alarm. The accused threatened her with dire consequences. She tried to escape but in vain. Thereafter, the accused committed rape against her will and then he burnt her left hand with the burning cigarette as punishment so that she would not disclose about the incident to others. After sometimes, she managed to escape from the hands of the accused and raised alarm. At this the appellant pushed her on the ground and threatened her to murder if she dared to disclose the incident to anyone. The appellant fled away from the place. After her hue and cry, other family members came to the place of occurrence and she narrated the incident to them. They informed the local respectable persons and they suggested her to take the matter in accordance with law.

6. After receiving the said complaint, an FIR was registered and investigation was started. The accused was arrested and subsequently chargesheeted u/s 448/376/506 IPC. After framing of charge and noting down the plea of not guilty of the appellant, the Learned Court proceeded to examine the witnesses and it appears from the record that the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The defence case was of denial of the prosecution case. The appellant declined to adduce any evidence. After recording the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, and also after hearing the argument the Learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant u/s 376/448/506 IPC and passed order of sentences including rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to simple imprisonment for another six months for the offence u/s 376 IPC and other sentences as well.

7. From the judgment it appears that the Learned Trial Judge has discussed in detail all the points raised from the side of the defence. According to Learned Trial Judge, the offence of rape is generally committed in an isolated place or the place where no one is present and as such it is very difficult to find any eye witness to the incident of rape. In the instant case there is no eye witness to the incident of rape except the evidence of the victim. Therefore, the Learned Trial Judge has concluded that the evidence of the victim is the determining factor to ascertain whether the allegation has been proved or not. For the sake of convenience I would like to quote excerpts of the examination-in-chief of the victim which is as follows:-

               I have lodged this case against the accused Kamal Barman. Accused Kamal Barman is present in the Court (Witness identified the accused on the dock). The husband was not present in the house. At about 8.00/9.00 p.m accused Kamal Barman came to my house and demanded an iron bar used for catching fish from my mother-in-law and after getting it the accused left my home. At about 11.00 pan in the night, I came out from my house to attend nature's call. After attending my nature's call, while I was entering into my house, the accused grabbed me and shut my mouth by putting his hands and he alarmed me by saying that if I would raise hue and cry then I would face the dire consequences. Thereafter the accused let me down on my bed and committed rape upon me against my will. After commission of rape, the accused fled away from there by pushing me aside when I raised hue and cry. After hearing my hues and cry, my mother-in-law reached there. Other local neighbouring people also reached there. When my mother-in-law and neighbouring people reached there, I informed regarding the incident. After the incident I lodged this case against the accused Kamal Barman. (Written complaint is tendered to the witness) This is the written complaint which was scribed by one Mohurar as per my instruction and after scribing the same he read over and explained the contents stated therein and after understanding the contents stated therein, I put my RT1 as well as my signature on the written complaint.

It is also pertinent to look into her cross examination which is quoted herein below:-

               Prior to this incident my husband had visited Jaipur for work. My husband had visited Jaipur with my son-in-law at about ten days before this incident. 1 reside in my house with my mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister of my mother-in-law and my three kids. My mother-in-law and father-in-law reside in one room the same compound in the north-east of my house and sister of my mother-in-law along with my son was in one room. I along with my one child was in one room. My house comprises two rooms partitioned by jute stick and it has single door. When the accused grabbed me I tried my lebel best to free myself from the clutches of the accused. My house is south faced and the room in which I reside was in the eastern side of the partition. The bed was in the south side of the room and the partition was in the middle. The door of the house opens to north direction. At the relevant time when I entered into my room there was darkness and at the relevant time there was on electricity connection. Adjacent to my house there is house of Sushil Barman and adjacent to east to his house, there are houses of Sachin Barman, GobindBannan, Adhir Barman, Bhoben Barman and others are located at a distance. The house of the accused at a distance of one kilometer from my house.When I raised hue and cry first of all my mother-in-law and father-in-law reached there. I can recollect the name of the neighbouring people who reached there and they were Nitya Barman, Sushil Barman and his wife, Adhir and others. At the relevant time KaminiAdhikary was the member of Panchayat and his house is at a distance of two and half kilometers from my house. I informed him regarding the incident in the night itself. The distance between my house and the Sitalkuchi PS is about 2-3 kilometers and it takes 20 minutes to reach at the PS. The accused Kamal Barman used to work as carpenter with my husband. I cannot say whether my husband had any dispute with the accused or not. At the relevant time when the accused committed rape upon me, the incident continued up to half an hour. At the relevant time when the accused was committing rape upon me, my mouth was not shut. The accused kept my mouth shut with his hands for a minute.

               Not a fact that the accused did not grab me at the relevant time when I was entering into my house after attending my nature's call or he did not let me down on my bed or he did not commit rape upon me against my will is false. Not a fact that my husband had a dispute with the accused taking the issue of money. Not a fact that I have lodged a false case against the accused. Not a fact that no such incident had occurred. Not a fact that I am deposing falsely.

8. Now if we peruse the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C we shall find that she has categorically stated that the accused committed rape upon her. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution does not show any injury on the private parts. The Learned Trial Judge has very rightly pointed out that as the victim was a mother of three children it is very unusual that the victim would suffer any injury due to such sexual inter course. The Learned Judge after quoting the judgment reported in (2006) 10 SCC 595 has quoted the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the effect that mere fact that no injuries were found on the private parts of the victim lady cannot be the ground to hold that no rape was committed on her. He has also observed that it is a settled law that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape nor can be construed as evidence or consent nor the opinion of doctor that there was no evidence of forcefully sexual intercourse or rape sufficient to disbelieve the victim. According to the Learned Trial Judge, the evidence of the victim lady inspires confidence and therefore he has relied upon the said evidence of the victim in convicting the accused. The Case Law in Ram Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that entire prosecution evidence would have to be taken into consideration before arriving at any conclusion. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Babumina (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of prosecutrix can only be relied upon if the same is found to be creditworthy and reliable.

9. I have agreed with the observations of the learned Trial Judge, since it appears that the evidence of the victim lady inspires confidence. No ground has been established from the side of the appellant as to why he was allegedly falsely implicated; no suggestion was given to that effect. On the other hand, it appears that the relationship between the family of the de facto complainant and the appellant was good and he had free access to the house of the de facto complainant’s family. It is also the claim of the defence that the above case has been falsely initiated to settle the dispute but the defence was not able to establish that there was any ground for implicating the appellant falsely. The FIR was lodged on the very next day. The mother in law of the victim lady who has been examined as PW 3 has supported the victim. The suggestion of financial dispute was denied and the suggestion that her son had a fight with the appellant was also denied. I do not find any perversity in the relevant judgment and hence I am inclined to affirm the impugned judgment and the order of sentence and accordingly I do so. The judgment and order dated 25.09.2020/28.09.2020 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mathabahanga, CoochBehar Sessions Case No. 151 of 2016; Sessions Trial No. 24(iii) 2016 is hereby affirmed.

10. The appellant Kamal Barman who is on bail is directed to surrender before the Learned Trial Judge within one month from this day for serving out the sentence, in default, the Learned Judge shall issue warrant of arrest against the appellant and shall take him into custody on execution of warrant and then to commit him to the concerned correctional home for serving out the sentence.

11. Let a copy of this judgment along with TCR be sent back to the Learned Trial Court for his information and necessary action.