JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.2.2012 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 79(JJ)2011 convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 /511 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for further 6(six) months. I have heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae and so also Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned APP, Assam. Referring to the evidence on record Mr. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae submits that there being reasonable doubt about the motive behind the lodging of the FIR, falsely implicating the accused appellant, it is a fit case for interference with the impugned judgment of conviction. On the other hand, Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned APP, Assam, submits that the evidence being overwhelming towards establishing the offence against the accused appellant and the learned Trial Court having convicted him on that basis, this is not a case for interference with the said judgment. 2. Titabor PS Case No. 53/2011 was registered under Section 376 /511 /506 IPC on the basis of the FIR lodged by the victim on 10.6.2011. As per the said FIR, the accused appellant taking advantage of the absence of the victim's husband, tried to commit the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. When she raised hue and cry, the accused appellant threatened her that he would kill her and her husband. As per the FIR, the accused had grabbed her from behind but she could escape from his clutches. In the FIR, it was also stated that the accused appellant had already served 7(seven) years imprisonment after killing his parents. As per the FIR, he was in the habit of throwing stones to the house of the first informant. 3. Upon submission of the charge sheet, charge was framed and the case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, trial started there upon registering Sessions Case No. 79(JJ)2011. During trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses including the victim. The victim (PW-1) in her deposition categorically stated about the incident and in the cross examination she could not be confronted with the statement made in chief. Similarly, other witnesses also narrated the incident in their deposition. PW-2 is the husband of the victim, who was absent when the incident occurred. The victim (PW-1) in her deposition categorically stated about the incident and in the cross examination she could not be confronted with the statement made in chief. Similarly, other witnesses also narrated the incident in their deposition. PW-2 is the husband of the victim, who was absent when the incident occurred. On his return home the victim informed him about the incident. He in his deposition stated that on getting the information from his wife, he had gone to the accused but he chased him away and somehow he could save himself. PW-3 is the Village Defence Secretary of the Titabor Bogargaon. He in his deposition stated about the visit of the PW-1 to the Police Station where he was present and lodging of the FIR by her. He also testified that the accused appellant was released only a few days back from jail and after coming out of the jail, he committed the said further offence. 4. PW-4 is the brother of the accused. He also confirmed in his deposition that the accused was in jail in connection with a murder case. Narrating the incident, he in his deposition stated as to how he had been informed by the victim about the incident. PW-5 is the IO who in his deposition stated about the investigation that was carried out and submission of the charge sheet. 5. I have also perused the statement of the victim girl made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The evidence on record clearly established the offence that was committed by the accused appellant. There is nothing contradictory in the evidence on record and it is a case of establishing the offence committed by the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly stands dismissed. The Registry shall send down the LCR along with the copy of this judgment and order. Appreciating the services rendered by Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Amicus Curiae, it is hereby provided that he will be entitled to a hearing fee of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to be borne by the Legal Aid Committee. He will also be entitled to a copy of this judgment and order free of cost. Appeal dismissed