Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 172 (GAU)

Ratan Biswas v. State of Assam

2013-03-12

P.K.SAIKIA

body2013
JUDGMENT P.K. Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2009 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in Session Case No. 28/07 convicting one Ratan Biswas, appellant herein, of offence under Section 376 /417 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for seven years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo RI for six months for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo RI for a period of two months for offence under Section 417 IPC. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, Sri Ratan Biswas, hereinafter referred to as accused person has preferred this Jail Appeal citing several alleged infirmities in the judgment, so rendered by the trial court on 22.09.2009 in Sessions Case No. 28/07. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the accused/appellant who is one of the neighbours of the informant, Narayan Biswas habitually visited the house of the informant and sometime in the absence of the parents of the prosecutrix as well. Taking advantage of his being a neighbour of the informant and also the advantage of absence of informant in his house, the accused developed intimacy with the prosecutrix on the promise of marring her and also started having sex with her. 3. As a result of such cohabitation, the daughter of the informant who would be described hereinafter as prosecutrix became pregnant. On coming to know that his daughter was pregnant from his wife, the informant reported the matter to the villagers who advised him to approach the guardian of the accused person and to report the matter to them so that they could arrange a marriage between the accused and the prosecutrix. 4. When the father of the victim girl, sent some villagers to the house of accused person in order to mediate the problem, they refused to accept the proposal of father of the victim girl. Even when the victim girl approached them, they refused to arrange a marriage between the accused and the victim girl. In the meantime the victim girl gave birth to a female child. 5. Even when the victim girl approached them, they refused to arrange a marriage between the accused and the victim girl. In the meantime the victim girl gave birth to a female child. 5. Having found no other way out, the father of the victim girl filed an FIR against the accused with the police at Malugram Police Out Post, Silchar on 31.12.2005. On receipt of the FIR, the concerned IC forwarded the same to the OC Silchar PS for registering the case in accordance with law. On the receipt of FIR, so forwarded, the OC Silchar PS registered a case thereon and ordered for investigation. 6. In the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the witnesses, had the victim girl examined by the doctor and did other needful and thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC against the accused person and forwarded him to the Court to stand his trial there. 7. The Magistrate before whom charge-sheet was so laid, committed the case to the Court of Sessions since the offence under Section 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge, on the receipt of the case on commitment, transferred the case to the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Silchar for disposal. 8. The learned Asst. Sessions Judge, on receipt of the case on transfer, heard the parties and on going through the materials on record, framed the charges under Section 376 /417 IPC against the accused person. The charges so framed, on being read over and explained to the accused person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. During the course of trial, the prosecution side has examined as many as eleven witnesses including prosecutrix, the doctor who attended the victim during investigation as well as the Investigating Officers of the case under consideration. The statement of the accused person under Section 313 CrPC was recorded. The accused plea was total denial. He however, did not adduce any evidence of his own. 10. On the conclusion of the trial, and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the accused of offences under Section 376 /417 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal citing several alleged infirmities in the judgment under consideration. 11. 10. On the conclusion of the trial, and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted the accused of offences under Section 376 /417 IPC and sentenced him to punishment as aforesaid. It is that judgment which has been assailed in the present appeal citing several alleged infirmities in the judgment under consideration. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused person has contended that the judgment rendered by the trial court is unsustainable in law since it was riddled with several infirmities of extremely serious nature. In that connection, he pointed out that there was enormous delay in lodging the FIR. But such delay remained totally unexplained. 12. Secondly, it has been stated that the FIR was not proved in accordance with law which administered a fatal blow to the prosecution case. Similarly, the evidence rendered by PWs are defective on materials particulars and as such, no implicit reliance can be placed on such evidence. 13. It has again been contended that the evidence rendered by the doctor did not at all support the prosecution case. Inspite of all those infirmities in the prosecution case, the learned trial court held the accused guilty of offence under Section 376 /417 IPC. He, therefore, urges this court to set aside the judgment under challenge and to acquit the accused person of the offences aforesaid. 14. In support of his contention, he has referred me the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Bipul Medhi Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2007) 2 GLR 200 as well as the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of K.P. Thimmappa Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2564 . 15. Refuting the arguments so advanced by the leaned counsel for the Amicus Curiae, learned Addl. PP has submitted that the infirmities, pointed out are imaginary and not based on facts of record. Quite contrary to it, the learned trial court rendered its judgment on evidence which is convincing, clear and cogent and such evidence inspires confidence on the claim made by the prosecution witnesses. She, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss this appeal. 16. While the victim was examined as PW 2 her father and mother were examined as PW 1 and PW 3 respectively. She, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss this appeal. 16. While the victim was examined as PW 2 her father and mother were examined as PW 1 and PW 3 respectively. In his evidence, PW 1 has stated that during the time of consideration, the accused used to visit his house quite regularly. Every morning, he along with his wife left his house in search of work leaving behind the victim and her sibling in their house. However, around month of December, 2005, the mother of the victim had to stay back at their house due to her ailment. 17. During that time, she observed that the victim was on her family way. When she asked her how she became pregnant, the victim girl told her mother that the accused sexually exploited her under the promise that he would marry her one day. But then the accused subsequently backtracked from his promise. On being so informed, his wife reported him about such incident. 18. On coming to know such an affair, he reported the matter to the villagers and on their advice, he requested some of the villagers to go to the house of the guardian of the accused person and to request them to arrange a marriage between the victim and the accused person. But the guardian of the accused refused to accept the victim as their daughter-in-law claiming that their son committed no wrong, whatsoever to the daughter of the PW 1. 19. When the villagers failed to settle the matter, than the victim herself went to the house of the accused person and demanded him to marry her as because she got conceived from the side of the accused person. But the accused instead of marring her, threw her out of his house. Meanwhile the victim girl gave birth to a female child. Left with no other choice but to take recourse to law, the father of the victim girl filed an FIR against the accused with the police with the Malugram outpost, Silchar on 31.12.2005. 20. Smti Kamala Rani Biswas is the mother of the victim girl and she was examined as PW 3. According to her, he and her husband used to go out of our house every day in search of their livelihood leaving the victim and her young brothers and sisters in their house. 20. Smti Kamala Rani Biswas is the mother of the victim girl and she was examined as PW 3. According to her, he and her husband used to go out of our house every day in search of their livelihood leaving the victim and her young brothers and sisters in their house. During the time under consideration, the accused used to visit her house and most of the times during their absence. Once she fell ill for which remained confined to her house for some time. 21. When she was so confined in her house, she noticed that the prosecutrix was on her family way. When she enquired her as to how she got pregnant, she told her that the accused used to visit their house during their absence and developed an intimacy with her promising that he would marry her one day. Under such promise, he wanted to have sex with her. Believing such promise to be true, she allowed the accused to have sex with her for which she became so pregnant. 22. Initially, as she was told, her daughter refused to cohabit with the accused person. But the accused appellant re-assured her that he would marry her one day which believed to be true and genuine. According to the prosecutrix, under such promise, the accused had sex with her on several occasions. She did not tell such story to her family members because the accused asked her not to divulge same to her parents since he would marry her one day. 23. However, the accused subsequently backtracked from his promise. On coming to know about such affair, she informed such developments to her husband. The husband then reported the matter to the village people. On the advice of the village people, the father of the prosecutrix sent some of the villagers to the house of the accused person to request the parents of the accused to accept the daughter of the PW 3 as their daughter-in-law. 24. Thereafter the village people went to the house of the accused and reported the matter to the parents of the accused person. The villagers also asked the parents of the accused to arrange a marriage between the victim and the accused person. But they refused to accept the demand of the villagers. 24. Thereafter the village people went to the house of the accused and reported the matter to the parents of the accused person. The villagers also asked the parents of the accused to arrange a marriage between the victim and the accused person. But they refused to accept the demand of the villagers. Thereafter, the victim herself went to the house of the accused person and urged him to marry her since she got pregnant through him only. 25. Instead of agreeing to marry her, the accused drove her out of his house by subjecting her to physical assault Mean while her daughter gave birth to a child. Having left with no other alternative, her husband lodged the FIR with the police. In the cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police that her daughter, at first, did not allow the accused to have sex with her. She also denied the suggestion that her daughter did so when the accused promised to marry her. 26. PW 2 is the prosecutrix/victim in the case under consideration. According to her, the accused used to visit their house very often. Every morning, her parents left their house in search of work leaving her and her minor siblings in the house. One day when her parents were not there in their house, the accused came to her and told her that he would marry her one day. Thereafter, he expressed his desire to have sex with her. 27. But the victim refused to have sex with the accused person and as such, the accused reassured her that one day, he would invariably marry her. The prosecutrix believed such promise to be truthful and genuine one and started cohabiting with the accused under the promise, so made, to her. As a result of such cohabitation, she became pregnant. More importantly, believing that the accused would marry her one day, she did not divulge such episode to her parents. 28. In the meantime, her pregnancy became six to seven months old but the accused showed no sign of marrying her. Ultimately, the accused refused to marry her for which she conveyed such development to her mother. Her mother, in turn, reported the matter to her husband. Her father then reported the matter to the villagers. 28. In the meantime, her pregnancy became six to seven months old but the accused showed no sign of marrying her. Ultimately, the accused refused to marry her for which she conveyed such development to her mother. Her mother, in turn, reported the matter to her husband. Her father then reported the matter to the villagers. On the advice of the villagers, her father sent some villagers to meet the guardian of the accused person with a request to arrange a marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused person. 29. The villagers, who approached the guardian of the accused person, requested them to arrange a marriage between prosecutrix and the accused person. But the guardian of the accused person refused to accept such proposal. When the villagers failed to settle the matter, the prosecutrix herself came to the house of the accused person and demanded him to marry her as he was the person responsible for her pregnancy. 30. But the accused refused to marry her. Rather he got her out of his house with further warning that if she continues to insist him to marry her, then she would have to face serious consequences. In the meantime, she gave birth to a female child. Having found no other way out, her father lodged an FIR. In the cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that the accused never had any sex with her. 31. Shri Samar Sarkar, PW 4, is cultivator by profession whereas Sri Bisweswar Das, PW 5, is a fisherman by profession. These PWs, more particularly PW 4 deposes that one day, they came to know that the victim got pregnant from the side of the accused person. They also came to know that he established such sexual relationship with the prosecutrix promising her to marry her one day. But subsequently, the accused refused to marry her. In this connection, a village meeting was called where the accused and his father were present. 32. But the accused and his Father denied that the accused person had any illicit relationship with the victim. When the matter could not be settled in the "Bichar", then, the villagers advised the father of the prosecutrix to file a complain before the police as per law. 32. But the accused and his Father denied that the accused person had any illicit relationship with the victim. When the matter could not be settled in the "Bichar", then, the villagers advised the father of the prosecutrix to file a complain before the police as per law. In his cross examination, PW 4 denied the suggestion that he did not tell the police the accused had sex with the prosecutrix under a promise to marry her one day. 33. PW 7, Shri Nibaran Biswas is found saying that one day he came to know that the prosecutrix was pregnant and the accused was responsible for such pregnancy. He advised the accused to many the prosecutrix. The accused however, paid no heed to such advice 34. Dr. Asit Baran Nag was examined as PW-6. According to him, while he was working as Senior Medical & Health Officer, SMD Civil Hospital, Silchar, he examined the victim girl aged about 16 years but did not find any external injury on her private part. Ext. 1 is the medical report and Ext. 1(1) is his signature. 35. Dr. B.C. Roy Medhi, professor and HOD, Forensic Medicine, Silchar Medical College was examined as PW 11. According to him, on 30.12.2005 Dr. R. Chanu the then professor & Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine SMCH examined the victim girl and found as follows: (1) There was no evidence of sexual intercourse; (2) She was pregnant and duration of pregnancy was 26 to 28 weeks; (3) She was above 14 years but below 16 years old and (4) There was no mark of violence on the private part. 36. So situated, let me consider the evidence of police officers who participated in the investigation of the case under consideration. They are PW 8, PW 9 & PW 10. According to Shri Tridip Thakuria (PW 10), on 31.12.2005, he was working as Incharge of Malugram Tow Out Post (in short TOP). On that day, he received the FIR from one Narayan Biswas. After making necessary GD entry, he forwarded the same the OC Silchar PS for doing needful in accordance with law. 37. The OC Silchar PS on receipt of the same, registered a case thereon and re-endorsed it to him to conduct an investigation as per procedure. No. 2110/-. On that day, he received the FIR from one Narayan Biswas. After making necessary GD entry, he forwarded the same the OC Silchar PS for doing needful in accordance with law. 37. The OC Silchar PS on receipt of the same, registered a case thereon and re-endorsed it to him to conduct an investigation as per procedure. No. 2110/-. Being so entrusted with the investigation, he visited the PO, examined the victim girl, got her examined by the doctor and had her statement recorded by the Magistrate. However, before he could complete the investigation, he was transferred for which he handed over the case diary to the OC for doing needful. 38. In his cross-examination, he has stated that PW 1 did not tell him that during the time of consideration, his wife got confined in his house due to her illness. Similarly, PW 2 did not tell him that the accused promised to marry her once he earned sufficient money. 39. On the other hand, PW 3 did not tell him that her daughter at first did not agree to the proposal of the accused person. She also did not tell him that her daughter agreed to the proposal of the accused person when he reassured that that he would marry her one day. 40. On the other hand, PW 8 and PW 9, Shri Khirod Baishya and Shri Syambabu Sinha, police officers too participated in the investigation of the case under consideration. While PW 8 collected a medical report, PW 9 submitted the charge-sheet against the accused person. 41. Above being the evidence on record, let us see how far such evidence makes out the allegation brought against the accused person. But before I proceed further, I find it necessary to ascertain the authenticity of some allegations made against the prosecution case. In the first place, it was contended that since FIR was not proved in accordance with law, same cannot be made the foundation of the prosecution case. But once one takes the FIR out of the case under consideration, the entire case is bound to collapse. Unfortunately, this important aspect was not addressed to by learned trial court. 42. On the perusal of the record, I have found that it is true that the informant (PW 1) put his thumb impression in the FIR. But once one takes the FIR out of the case under consideration, the entire case is bound to collapse. Unfortunately, this important aspect was not addressed to by learned trial court. 42. On the perusal of the record, I have found that it is true that the informant (PW 1) put his thumb impression in the FIR. Therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of the prosecution to prove the FIR through either the scribe who wrote it or the person who knew the handwriting of the scribe. Unfortunately that was not done in the present case meaning thereby that the FIR was not proved in accordance with the requirement of law. 43. However, it is a settled law that even if the FIR is not proved, it may not be a ground for acquittal but the case would depend on the quality of the evidence led by the prosecution. A case can still survive without an FIR being proved in accordance with law if the evidence on record otherwise makes out the charge(s) brought against the accused person. 44. It is because of the fact that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. Rather it is an evidence of corroborative nature only. In that connection, we can profitably peruse that the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar, reported AIR 2002 SC 1965 . For ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:- It has been further submitted that the informant-Satendra Kumar Sharma has not been examined as such, First Information Report cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence inasmuch as on this ground as well as the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal. The submission is totally misconceived. Even if the first information report is not proved, it would not be a ground for acquittal, but the case would depend upon the evidence led by prosecution. Therefore, non-examination of the informant cannot in any manner affect the prosecution case. 44A. Being so, I need to know if the case in hand survives without being corroborated by the FIR. 45. Another point that deserves discussion here is what the age of prosecutrix at the time relevant. Therefore, non-examination of the informant cannot in any manner affect the prosecution case. 44A. Being so, I need to know if the case in hand survives without being corroborated by the FIR. 45. Another point that deserves discussion here is what the age of prosecutrix at the time relevant. In her evidence the prosecutrix claims that on the date on which she rendered evidence before the court, she was a girl of 16 years of age. Though neither the parents of the prosecutrix nor the prosecutrix herself in their evidence did utter a word about the age of prosecutrix during the time under consideration, yet, the Doctor who attended her during the time under consideration found prosecutrix to be a girl of between 14 to 16 years of age. 46. However, on perusing the record more and more, I have found that doctors, PW 11 in particular, did not assign any reason for which they came to the finding that at the time relevant the prosecutrix was a girl of about 14 to 16 years of age. Quite surprisingly, the PW 6 stated that he reflected the age of girl as 16 years on the basis of information furnished in the police report. In view of above, I am constrained to hold that it cannot be safely accepted that at the time relevant, the prosecutrix was a girl of 16 years of age, more so, when there is indisputable evidence to show that the prosecutrix is the eldest of nine children of her parents. 47. So situated, let us consider the evidence on record to ascertain the veracity of claim made by prosecution in the case under consideration. Coming back to evidence on record, I have found that in her evidence, PW 2 quite categorically states that during the time under consideration, her parents used to leave their house quite early in the morning in search of livelihood leaving her and her young brothers and sisters in their house. 48. During such time, the accused used to come to the house taking advantage of the absence of her parents in their house and developed an intimacy with her promising that that he would marry her one day. On making such proposal, he expressed to have sex with her. But the prosecutrix refused to allow the accused to have sex with her. On making such proposal, he expressed to have sex with her. But the prosecutrix refused to allow the accused to have sex with her. However, the accused kept on telling her that he would marry her one day. 49. Owing to such continuous pestering, she believed the promise, made to her and started having sex with the accused person under such promise. But she soon became pregnant due to such intercourse with the accused person. When he communicated such a state of affair to the accused person, he, at first, sought some time to arrange some money to conduct the marriage but subsequently he refused to marry her. 50. In the meantime, her mother came to know such affairs for which she conveyed the matter to her husband who, in turn, reported the same to the villagers. The villagers too mediated the matter but without any success and as such, the advised the matter to be reported to the police and that is how her father lodged a case against the accused person. 51. The evidence, so rendered by the prosecutrix, draws full support on all material points and their evidence together show that the accused did promise the prosecutrix to marry her and under such promise, he established sexual relationship with the prosecutrix which ultimately made her pregnant for which she later gave birth to female child. 52. Their evidence, particularly the evidence of the victim, shows that she really believed the promise, so made by the accused person, to be truthful and genuine one and believing such promises as truthful, she indulged in sex with the accused person. The evidence of prosecutrix as well as her parents again reveals that the accused never intended to marry her under the promise, he made to the prosecutrix. 53. The fact that the accused on one plea or other deferred his marriage with the prosecutrix and the fact that subsequently, he totally backtracked from his promise made to the prosecutrix very firmly shows that accused person never ever intended to marry the prosecutrix although the prosecutrix believed such promise to be true and genuine. 54. 53. The fact that the accused on one plea or other deferred his marriage with the prosecutrix and the fact that subsequently, he totally backtracked from his promise made to the prosecutrix very firmly shows that accused person never ever intended to marry the prosecutrix although the prosecutrix believed such promise to be true and genuine. 54. In that connection, we may note that the villagers who participated in Mel to arrange a marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused person clearly stated in their evidence that not only the parents of the accused person but accused as well did not accept the request made by the villagers in the Mel. This is, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is one more testimony of accused never intending to marry his paramour although he had sex with her under a promise to marry her. 55. The evidence rendered by PW 7 Sri Nibaran Biswas also reveals that at the time under consideration the accused had an affair with the prosecutrix. He was told by victim that she got pregnant from the side of the accused person. Being so informed, PW 7 requested the accused person to marry the prosecutrix. However, the later did not pay heed to his request. The evidence of PW 7 which remains nearly undisturbed lends more and more credence to the claim of the prosecutrix which she made in the case under consideration. 56. We have already found that at the time relevant, the prosecutrix was certainly a girl above 16 years of age. Being so, the accused can be held responsible for the alleged act only if it is proved that the accused had cheated the prosecutrix and having cheated her he had sexual intercourse with her which made her pregnant for which she subsequently gave birth to a female child. 57. It is found that the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix and having made her believe such promise to be honest and genuine, he had sex with her. Our forgoing discussion has made it clear. Such discussion further reveals that at no point of time, the accused intended to marry the prosecutrix. These are fluent testimony of the accused cheating the prosecutrix and having cheated her he caused her to have sex with him which she would not have done had she not been so cheated. Our forgoing discussion has made it clear. Such discussion further reveals that at no point of time, the accused intended to marry the prosecutrix. These are fluent testimony of the accused cheating the prosecutrix and having cheated her he caused her to have sex with him which she would not have done had she not been so cheated. Being so, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has successfully established the charge under Section 417 IPC. 58. Once it is held that the prosecutrix had consented to have sex with the accused person under a promise which is found to be fraudulent and fake one, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the consent, so given, was no consent in the eye of law and as such, the accused needs to be held guilty of the offence under 376 IPC too. 59. In that connection, we can profitably peruse the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Bipul Medhi (supra), wherein this Court held as follows: 34. It may, however, be borne in mind that even if a prosecutrix had consented believing in the words of the accused that the promise for marriage made to her by the accused is honest and genuine, this will not be sufficient to hold that no consent existed for the purpose of section 90, IPC unless it is further established that the accused, at the time, when he had made the, promise, did not have the intention of keeping to his promise. In a given case, thus, even a strong probability, if revealed from the materials on record, that the accused intended to marry the prosecutrix at the time, when had had made the promise for marriage, may absolve the accused, for, in such a case, cannot be said that the consent was given under a misconception of fact and that the accused know, or had reason to believe, that the consent given was under such misconception of fact. 35. 35. Conversely, if a woman, believing in the promise of marriage made by a man, consents to the promisor having sexual intercourse with her, the promisor would be liable for the offence of rape if the court finds, on examination of the materials on record, that the promise of marriage made by the promisor was really a hoax to obtain consent of the woman, for, such a consent given by the woman would not, in the light of the provisions of section 90, IPC, amount to consent in law and the sexual intercourse by such a promisor with a woman, so induced, would constitute offence of rape. What is imperative to bear in mind, in such cases, is that killing of a man is ordinarily, conceived as murder by a common man; but in law, every killing does not amount to murder. Similarly, the word 'consent' as is understood in common parlance, may not be, for the purpose of the Indian Penal Code at all. 60. However, the prosecution case comes under fire for some other reasons as well. It has been contended that there was delay in lodging the case and same remains unattended to. In that connection, it has been pointed out that there was delay of about 7 months from the time of alleged incident I have considered the above submission in the light of evidence on record. 61. On such an exercise, I have found that it is true that there was delay in lodging the case under consideration. But then, it cannot be said that such delay remained unexplained. There is indisputable evidence on record to show that the prosecutrix did not report the matter even to her parents since the accused kept on promising that he would marry her one day. The prosecutrix, record reveals, believe such promise to be truthful one and therefore, she did not report the matter to anyone. 62. The problem, however, arose only when the accused showed his actual intention in respect of promise he made to the prosecutrix. Once it was found the accused had no intention to honour his promise, the prosecutrix reported the matter to her mother which ultimately led to filing of a criminal case against the accused person. These clearly explain as to why there was delay in lodging the case. 63. Once it was found the accused had no intention to honour his promise, the prosecutrix reported the matter to her mother which ultimately led to filing of a criminal case against the accused person. These clearly explain as to why there was delay in lodging the case. 63. It has also been contended that medical report did not support the prosecution case since the doctor did not notice any sign of sexual intercourse on the private part of prosecutrix. He also did not find any mark of violence on her any body part. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, such finding clearly demonstrates that charge of rape, so slapped on the accused person, is without any substance. 64. Such an argument holds no water whatsoever. We have already found that matter was reported to the police only when the prosecutrix became almost 7 months pregnant. At that point of time, it is quite but natural for the doctor not to find any sign of rape on the private part of prosecutrix. For the same reason, doctor's inability to detect any mark of violence on the body part is of no consequence whatsoever. 65. It has again been argued that the evidence of PWs is defective on materials particulars. Such evidence suffers from contradictions as well. It would be wholly unsafe to rely on testimony of those witnesses. Once again, allegations mounted on this count are also found unequal to the task, assigned. True, some inconsistencies and Other infirmities visited the testimonies, rendered by PWs. 66. But by no stretch of imagination, same can be treated as deficiencies having effect of overthrowing the entire prosecution case. Rather their presence in the case makes the testimony of PWs more and more trustworthy and reliable since a parrot like repetition of the events may many a times be the product of well tutored exercise basically based on lies and falsehood. 67. We have already found that in the case under consideration, the FIR was not proved in accordance with law for which this court had no other option but to keep such FIR beyond the purview of present discussion. But from our discussion above, now, it is found that witnesses have established the charges brought against the accused person beyond any shadow of doubt. More importantly, the prosecution has done it despite its case not being corroborated by the FIR. 68. But from our discussion above, now, it is found that witnesses have established the charges brought against the accused person beyond any shadow of doubt. More importantly, the prosecution has done it despite its case not being corroborated by the FIR. 68. In the fact of above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prosecution case cannot be thrown away only for same was not corroborated by the FIR. Being so all the allegations, brought against the prosecution case, are found to be far too inconsequential in causing damage to the prosecution case. 69. Resultantly, I have found that the conviction of the accused person of offences under Section 376 /417 IPC needs no interference. However, on considering the matter in its entirety, I am of the opinion that sentence, imposed upon the accused, needs a little modification. 70. Accordingly, his period of sentence for offence under Section 376 IPC is reduced to RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default RI for another three months. But the sentence in respect of offence under Section 417 IPC is maintained. Both the sentences will run concurrently. The period which the accused/appellant has already spent in Jail is to be set off against the sentence. 71. I deeply appreciate the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. The authority concerned is directed to pay the Amicus Curiae her professional fee amounting to Rs. 5,000/- at an early date. 72. The appeal is partly allowed and the judgment is modified to the extent indicated above. Return the LCR.