RANJIT DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are against the judgement of conviction dated 22/09/2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 2 passed in Sessions Case No. 37/2000. By the said judgement, both the appellants, namely, Ranjit Das and Dimbeswar Das have been convicted under Section 376(g) IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10(ten) years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default to pay the fine they were to undergo S.I. for 1 (one) more month. While the accused Ranjit Das is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2011, the other accused, namely, Dimbeswar Das is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 202/2011.

(2.) Both the appeals having arisen out of the same judgement have been heard together. I have heard Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel led by Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellants and have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned APP, Assam. I have also perused the entire materials on record.

(3.) Mr. N.J. Das, learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the impugned judgement of conviction primarily being based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, her deposition will have to be considered in the touch stone of inspiring confidence. Referring to her alleged different stand in the FIR, statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and deposition made during trial, he submits that there being inherent contradictions, it will be dangerous to convict the accused appellant solely on the basis of her testimony. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (Mussauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, 2009 14 SCC 541 (Lalliram and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 10 SCC 69) and {Rai Sandeep alias Deepu Vs.State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 8 SCC 21}. Mr. D. Das, learned APP, Assam on the other hand submits that minor variations in the FIR and the deposition made during trial cannot give rise to a situation in which the accused appellants can claim acquittal. According to him, the prosecutrix having vividly stated about commission of the offence by the accused appellants, the impugned judgement of conviction is required to be sustained.