JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 21-11-2009, passed, in Sessions Case No. 104(DH) of 2008, by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, convicting the accused-appellant under Sections 450 and 376, IPC and sentencing him to undergo, for his conviction under Section 450, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to undergo, for his conviction under Section 376, IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently, and the amount of fine to be paid, on realization thereof, to the prosecutrix as compensation. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: (i) On 29-09-2008, at about 9.00 p.m. while the prosecutrix was sitting alone, in her house, on her bed, with one lantern lying lit there, the accused knocked the door of her house, but the prosecutrix did not open the door. The accused, then, broke the door open, came inside the house and was recognized by the prosecutrix in the light of the lantern, which had been lying lit, because the accused used to live near the house of the prosecutrix. The accused caught hold of the prosecutrix and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and when the prosecutrix, somehow, managed to run to her Courtyard, the accused caught hold of her neck, dragged her to a nearby sugarcane field, removed her dress, made her almost naked and, he, once again, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. On the very night of the occurrence, prosecutrix informed Jiban Chetri, a person, who lives near her house. She also informed Khem Chetri and Badri Pukhre on the following morning. (ii) On the following day, the prosecutrix lodged an ejahar and treating the said ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR')/Silapathar Police Station Case No. 271/2008, under Sections 447 /448 /376, IPC, was registered against the accused. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, got the prosecutrix medically examined, arrested the accused and laid charge-sheet, under Sections 448 and 376, IPC, against the accused-appellant. 2. At the trial, when charges, under Sections 450 and 376, IPC, were framed against the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, got the prosecutrix medically examined, arrested the accused and laid charge-sheet, under Sections 448 and 376, IPC, against the accused-appellant. 2. At the trial, when charges, under Sections 450 and 376, IPC, were framed against the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of mixed plea of denial and also that the accused had gone to the house of the prosecutrix on being called by the prosecutrix to receive re- payment of his money, but she refused to give him money on the ground that she had been living with him as husband and wife. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 4. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offences charged with, learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, and Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the alleged occurrence took place, on 28-09-2008, between 9/9.30 p.m. and 11/11.30 p.m. and she was examined by the doctor (PW 5) on the following day, i.e., on 29-09-2008, and the doctor's findings were as follows: 1. Abrasion on left shoulder, 6 cm length. 2. Lacerated injury on lips and nose. Nature of injury : Simple caused by blunt weapon. No violent mark seen on her private parts. 7. Nothing could be elicited by the defence from cross-examination of PW 5 (doctor) to show that what has been deposed to by PW 5, as regard his findings, is untrue or false. In fact, the evidence of the doctor has remained unshaken. This apart, this Court, too, does not find anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the evidence of the doctor. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 8. In fact, the evidence of the doctor has remained unshaken. This apart, this Court, too, does not find anything inherently incorrect or improbable in the evidence of the doctor. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve his evidence. 8. The evidence of the doctor, thus, clearly shows abrasions on the left shoulder of the prosecutrix and lacerated injury on her lips as well as nose. The defence has not even attempted to explain the injuries, which had been found on the person of the prosecutrix. 9. Bearing in mind the medical evidence on record, when one comes to the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW 1), one finds that according to her evidence, on the night of the occurrence, at about 9.00 p.m., while she was sitting alone, on her bed, with a lantern lying lit, there was a knock at her door and as wind was blowing and it was raining, she presumed that the sound of knocking, at the door, had been caused by the wind. 10. It is, however, in the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW 1) that when she realized that someone had been knocking at the door, she enquired as to who the person was and though she was asked by the person, standing outside, to open the door, she did not open the door, whereupon, the person, who was present outside the house, entered into the house by breaking open the door. 11. It is also in the evidence of PW 1 that by breaking open the door, the accused, who is her neighbor, entered into the house, grabbed her and by lifting her saree, he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and when she, somehow, managed to run up to her Courtyard, the accused caught hold of her neck, dragged her to a nearby sugarcane field, removed her saree and committed rape on her and it was by about 11.00 p.m. that she could manage to go to the house of Jiban Chetri, one of her neighbours, and reported to him about the occurrence. 12. Pausing at this stage, for a moment, it may be pointed out that the accused has not denied his visit to the house of the prosecutrix on the night of the occurrence. Far from this, his visit to the house of the prosecutrix, on the alleged night of the occurrence, is an admitted fact. 12. Pausing at this stage, for a moment, it may be pointed out that the accused has not denied his visit to the house of the prosecutrix on the night of the occurrence. Far from this, his visit to the house of the prosecutrix, on the alleged night of the occurrence, is an admitted fact. The defence of the accused-appellant, however, had been that the prosecutrix owed money and, for making payment of her dues, she called him (the accused) home, but when he went to the house of the prosecutrix to take the money, she refused to give him the money on the ground that she had been living with him as his wife meaning thereby that though she was, otherwise, married, she had been habitually living with the accused-appellant. 13. In the face of the evidence, which has been discussed above, it is not possible to reject the evidence of the prosecutrix as wholly unfounded, untrue or false. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the door, which was allegedly broken by the accused-appellant, was not seized by the police nor was Jiban Chetri examined as a witness in the present case. The fact, that the broken door has not been seized by the police, cannot destroy the credibility of evidence of the prosecutrix inasmuch as the lapse, on the part of the Investigating Officer, cannot and would not make the Court reject the evidence of a women, who claims to have been subjected to rape, particularly, when there is no cross-examination of the prosecutrix or any suggestion given to her that she had not stated before the police that the accused had entered into her house by breaking open the door. 14. Situated thus, it becomes clear, in the light of the admission of the accused-appellant that he did go to the house of the prosecutrix, that the accused-appellant had entered into the house of the prosecutrix by breaking open the door of her house. 15. Similarly, the prosecution has not examined Khem Chetry and Badri Pukhre. In fact, non-examination of these witnesses, too, in the peculiar facts of the present case, cannot make the Court throw away the evidence of the prosecutrix, because it was, again, the duty of the prosecution to produce the witnesses concerned. 16. 15. Similarly, the prosecution has not examined Khem Chetry and Badri Pukhre. In fact, non-examination of these witnesses, too, in the peculiar facts of the present case, cannot make the Court throw away the evidence of the prosecutrix, because it was, again, the duty of the prosecution to produce the witnesses concerned. 16. Coupled with the above, there is no explanation plausible or otherwise, offered by the defence, as regard the injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix. It is also not alleged by the defence that the injuries, on the person of the prosecutrix, were self-inflicted injuries. In such circumstances, this Court does not find that the learned trial Court committed any error in placing reliance on the evidence of prosecutrix and when her evidence is believed, which I see no reason to disbelieve, her evidence is sufficient to bring home the charges, which were framed against the accused-appellant. 17. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find that the conclusions of guilt, reached by the learned trial Court against the accused-appellant, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. 18. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with either the findings of the learned trial Court or the sentences passed against the accused-appellant. 19. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, the appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. The conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 450, IPC and Section 376, IPC are hereby upheld. 20. Let the amicus curiae be paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his valuable assistance rendered to this Court. 21. Send back the LCR with a copy of this judgment and order. With the above observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed