JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (FTC), Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 61/2009 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for further period of 2 (two) months. 2. Prosecution case may be briefly noted. 3. One Amir Ali lodged a first information before the In-charge of Kalgachia Police Out Post under Sorbhog Police Station in the district of Barpeta on 26.09.2003 making the allegation that on 22.09.2003 between 12:00 noon and 1:00 pm when his minor daughter had gone to collect firewood at a distance from his residence, the accused came there and after gagging her, committed rape on her. The first information further stated that his wife and son went to the place of occurrence and apprehended the accused. The accused was brought to their house but he somehow managed to escape and flee. Informant stated that he had informed the village elders for holding a village "Mel" (meeting) but no such meeting could be held as the accused person did not cooperate, which caused delay in the filing of first information. 4. The first information was forwarded to the Sorbhog Police Station whereafter, it was treated as FIR and was registered on 04.10.2003 as Sorbhog PS Case No. 240/2003 under Section 376 IPC. 5. Police investigated the case. In the course of investigation, the victim was produced before the Magistrate, who recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC. The victim was also medically examined. The police could not apprehend the accused and, therefore, declared him as absconder. On completion of investigation, Investigating Officer (IO) submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 376 IPC. 6. Ultimately, the accused surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta on 30.11.2009 and, thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody. The case being sessions triable, it was committed to the Court of Sessions, Barpeta. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta transferred the case to the trial Court for disposal. 6. Ultimately, the accused surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta on 30.11.2009 and, thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody. The case being sessions triable, it was committed to the Court of Sessions, Barpeta. Thereafter, learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta transferred the case to the trial Court for disposal. When the trial Court framed charge against the accused under Section 376 IPC, which was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. However, the defence did not adduce any evidence. Defence plea was of total denial. After considering the evidence adduced and other relevant materials on record, learned trial Court held that the prosecution was able to prove the charge against the accused under Section 376 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the accused was convicted under the aforesaid section and sentenced as stated above. 8. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 9. This Court by order dated 04.04.2011 had admitted the appeal and by a separate order dated 30.05.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 235/2011, granted bail to the appellant. 10. Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and submits that the ingredients essential for constituting an offence of rape were totally absent in this case. The medical evidence also belied the prosecution case. Moreover, he submits that the evidence on record is clearly suggestive of the consensual nature of intercourse between the accused and the alleged victim. He, therefore, submits that in such circumstances the learned trial Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the charge against the accused stood proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the medical evidence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present is a fit case for giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant. 11. Submissions made by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has been resisted by Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. PP, Assam. He submits that when the version of the victim is reliable and trustworthy, no corroboration is required. 11. Submissions made by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant has been resisted by Mr. B.J. Dutta, learned Addl. PP, Assam. He submits that when the version of the victim is reliable and trustworthy, no corroboration is required. Medical evidence being in the nature of an opinion, cannot have an impact on the Court when the version of the victim inspires the confidence of the Court. He submits that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. Therefore, the conviction and sentence is justified. 12. Submissions made have been considered. 13. Before proceeding further, relevant portion of the evidence adduced may be briefly referred to. 14. PW 1 is the informant, who is also the father of the victim. He has stated that his daughter is aged about 10 years. He came to know from his wife and daughter that the accused had sexual intercourse with his daughter. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the incident himself. He also stated that he had not submitted the age certificate of his daughter. 15. PW 2 is the victim girl. At the time of adducing evidence, she disclosed her age as 20 years and the date of occurrence as about 6 years ago, which meant that her age was about 14 years on the date of occurrence, as per her version. She has stated that at about 12:00 noon on the day of occurrence, she had gone out from the house to collect firewood. At that time, the accused embraced her and had sexual intercourse with her. When she raised hue and cry, her mother and brother Saiful Islam came to the place of occurrence. Her brother Saiful Islam caught hold of the accused but the villagers took him away. While deposing, she paused for sometime and then stated that the accused had fled from the scene. In her cross-examination, PW 2 stated that she got married about 11/2 years after the incident and has two children from her marriage. She stated that the doctor had examined her on the day of the incident itself. 16. PW 3 is the mother of PW 2. She stated that on the day of incident, her daughter PW 2 had gone out from the house to collect firewood. She searched for her daughter and found the accused and her daughter. She stated that the doctor had examined her on the day of the incident itself. 16. PW 3 is the mother of PW 2. She stated that on the day of incident, her daughter PW 2 had gone out from the house to collect firewood. She searched for her daughter and found the accused and her daughter. According to her, her daughter's mouth was kept closed and on seeing her, the accused tried to flee but he was caught. However, he managed to flee from the scene. In her cross-examination, she stated that there are lots of families in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. After the incident, they made a complaint before the villagers but nothing was done. 17. Saiful Islam, the brother of the victim, is PW 4. He stated that on the day of incident, the accused had sexual intercourse with his sister. He had caught hold of the accused and brought him to their house. However, the accused could free himself and fled. He stated that he had found the accused under a bamboo grove. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has a shop selling vegetables. At the time of occurrence, his mother called him from the direction of the jungle. A commotion took place and when PW 4 caught hold of the accused, about 20/25 persons had gathered at the place of occurrence. However, the accused fled away and escaped. 18. PW 5 and 6 are neighbours and were declared hostile. However, in his cross-examination, PW 5 stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he saw Saiful Islam (PW 4) giving blows by hand to his sister PW 2. PW 6 in his cross-examination stated that he saw Saiful Islam holding the hands of the accused and that he heard from Saiful's mother PW 3 that the accused was caught red handed having forcible sexual intercourse with her daughter under a bamboo grove. 19. PW 7 is the doctor, who had examined the victim. He has stated that he did not find any injury mark either inside the vagina or on her private parts. But the hymen was absent. He further stated that no semen was found. He, however, stated that the age of the victim girl was required to be ascertained by radiological examination. He also stated that there was no sign of recent forceful intercourse. But the hymen was absent. He further stated that no semen was found. He, however, stated that the age of the victim girl was required to be ascertained by radiological examination. He also stated that there was no sign of recent forceful intercourse. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had examined the victim on 22.09.2003 at 8:00 pm in Kalgachia PHC but prepared the report on 29.09.2003, which was issued on 06.10.2003. Radiological examination of the victim was carried out by PW 8, Dr. Paresh Kalita, Senior Medical & Health Officer, Barpeta Civil Hospital on 07.10.2003. On such examination, he opined that the victim girl would be above 18 years but below 20 years and that he did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse. 20. The IO of the case gave evidence as PW 9. He has stated that the informant had lodged the ejahar on 04.10.2003 where the date of the incident was shown as 22.09.2003. He also stated that on the day of occurrence, the medical examination of the victim girl was done at Kalgachia PHC. When the accused was confronted with the evidence in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the allegation. 21. This was the evidence before the Court. 22. A cumulative assessment of the evidence would indicate that there was an attempt to understate the age of the victim girl. In the first information, PW 1, the informant, disclosed the age of his daughter as approximately 14 years. However, when he deposed, he declared the age of his daughter as about 10 years. No age certificate of the victim girl was produced before the Court and exhibited. As noticed above, the radiological examination of the victim girl indicated her age to be above 18 years but below 20 years. Thus, from the medical evidence and in the absence of any documentary evidence to the contrary, conclusion can be drawn that the victim girl was above 18 years of age. 23. The question, therefore, is whether there was any forceful sexual intercourse by the accused with the victim girl PW 2 within the meaning of Section 375 IPC. 24. PW 1, the informant, confessed that he did not see the incident. 23. The question, therefore, is whether there was any forceful sexual intercourse by the accused with the victim girl PW 2 within the meaning of Section 375 IPC. 24. PW 1, the informant, confessed that he did not see the incident. PW 3, the mother, stated that when she went out searching for her daughter, she found the accused and her daughter and the mouth of her daughter was kept closed. The accused tried to flee but was caught hold of by Saiful Islam PW 4, her son. In her cross-examination she has stated that there were lots of families in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. PW 2, the victim, in her cross-examination stated that she had gone to collect firewood at a distance of about 1 bigha from her house. In such circumstances, it would be highly improbable for the accused to have gagged the victim and thereafter to have committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, an adult woman, with not only her residence nearby but a large number of families residing in the vicinity. Again, PW 2 in her evidence stated that the accused had sexual intercourse with her. She did not say that the accused had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Her further statement that she had raised hue and cry and on hearing her hue and cry, her mother and brother had come to the place of occurrence is contradicted by her mother (PW3) when she says that she saw them together with the mouth of her daughter kept closed. Though the mother said that she and her son went out looking for her daughter, the son (PW4) stated that he was in his shop selling vegetables when his mother called him from the direction of the jungle. 25. PW 4, Saiful Islam, the brother stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused had sexual intercourse with his sister. If this piece of evidence is read together with the evidence of PW 5 that he saw Saiful Islam giving blows to the victim, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the victim was a consenting party to the act of sexual intercourse with the accused which had enraged her family members. The fact that the first information was lodged belatedly would also be a reflection on the consensual nature of the act and the attempt to cover up. 26. The fact that the first information was lodged belatedly would also be a reflection on the consensual nature of the act and the attempt to cover up. 26. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, first information was lodged on 26.09.2003 and the FIR was registered on 04.10.2003. The date of occurrence is shown as 22.09.2003 between 12:00 noon to 1:00 pm. The doctor says that he examined the victim on 22.09.2003 at 8:00 pm which is before lodging of the first information. He did not mention about any GD entry or police case number in his report which he prepared on 29.09.2003, seven days after the medical examination and which he issued on 06.10.2003. This only indicates that the medical examination of the victim was done at the instance of the family members to present the incident as a case of rape. 27. In such circumstances, the whole thing becomes very suspicious and lacking credibility. Thus, I am of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court that the prosecution witnesses could not be discredited appears to be misplaced. On the contrary, the prosecution case appears to be highly improbable and is clearly an attempt to cover up what appears to be a consensual act. 28. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the charge against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, it cannot be said that the charge against the accused stood proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the absence thereof, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt, which I hereby do. 29. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and quashed and the accused/appellant is set at liberty. Bail bond stands discharged. Office to send down the case record immediately. Appeal allowed