JUDGMENT : C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 10.04.2013, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Goalpara, in Sessions Case No. 140/2012 under Section 376(1) IPC. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 (seven) years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)- in default suffer R.I. for another period of 6 (six) months. 2. Heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. K. Devi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Perused the records. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.02.2009 at about 7.00 p.m., when the victim girl, i.e. the daughter of the informant had gone out to attend the nature's call, the accused person forcefully dragged her, by gagging her mouth, to the nearby betel nut garden, wherein he committed rape on her twice and thereafter he, again, took her to his house and committed rape. On the next morning, the victim girl was thrown to the road in unconscious state. She took shelter in the house of Mr. Safikur Rahman (PW-2) to whom she had narrated the entire incident. 4. PW-2 informed the victim's father i.e. the informant (PW-1), who lodged the FIR on the same day. On receipt of the FIR, police registered a case, being Momoi P.S. Case No. 12/2009 (GR. Case No. 222/2009), under Sections 366(A) and 376 IPC and launched investigation in to the matter. 5. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statement of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, forwarded the victim girl for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and got her medically examined. 6. At the close of investigation police submitted charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Sections 366(A) and376 IPC. Considering the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 342/376(1) IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses including the Investigating Officer (PW-6) and the Medical Officer (PW-7). At the close of the evidence for prosecution, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 7 (seven) witnesses including the Investigating Officer (PW-6) and the Medical Officer (PW-7). At the close of the evidence for prosecution, the accused person was examined, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations, brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. His plea was a denial one. 8. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the findings that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 376(1) IPC and accordingly, the learned Sessions convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. 9. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused person, as appellant, has come up with this appeal. 10. Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, taking this court through evidence, more particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-3), the Medical Officer (PW- 7), the statement, made by the prosecutrix, under Section 164 Cr. PC (Ext. 3) and the FIR (Ext. 1) has submitted that there are sufficient contradictions, on material point and as such the prosecution version cannot be believed, beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that, in the FIR it has been alleged that the limbs of the victim were tied, at the time of committing the alleged offence, but the victim in her evidence did not say so. 11. It is also submitted that the victim in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., stated that she had gone to the house of the PW No. 2, whereas PW No. 2, in his evidence, stated that he had found the victim girl lying on the road, in front of his house. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix, at the time of giving evidence, as PW 3 completely deviated from her earlier statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 12. In view of the above, it is submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not believable and as such, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the appellant. It is also submitted that PW 2, had enmity with the appellant and as such he, out of grudge and in collusion with the prosecutrix falsely concocted the present case against the appellant. It is also submitted that PW 2, had enmity with the appellant and as such he, out of grudge and in collusion with the prosecutrix falsely concocted the present case against the appellant. It is also submitted that, in view of the allegations of committing rape for 4 (four) times by a grown up person, the absence of any injury or mark of violence on the private part of the prosecutrix, raises serious doubt about the story of rape. 13. In view of the above, it has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, that the prosecution failed to prove the charges, brought against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 14. In support of his contention, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has relied on the decisions held in the cases of Rat Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NTC of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21 , Babul Roy v. State of Assam, reported in (2010) GLR 1, Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 791 . 15. Controverting the said argument, advanced by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, Ms. K. Devi, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that, in a rape case, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be trustworthy, can be the sole basis for the conviction and that the evidence given by the victim, in the present case, does not suffer from any deficiency or impropriety. It is also submitted that, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, there is sufficient corroboration in the evidence of the victim (PW-3) and PW 2 on material point. It is further submitted that absence of any other independent witness to corroborate the oral testimony of the prosecutrix in the attending facts and circumstances cannot be sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of prosecutrix, inasmuch as her evidence, despite cross-examination remained un-demolished on material point. 16. It is also submitted that the maker of the FIR as well as the maker of the statement, made under Section 164 Cr. PC, not being confronted with any contradiction, appearing in their said statement, no reliance can be placed on the said FIR as well as the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., to discredit the oral evidence given by the victim. 17. The learned Addl. PC, not being confronted with any contradiction, appearing in their said statement, no reliance can be placed on the said FIR as well as the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C., to discredit the oral evidence given by the victim. 17. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that that absence of any injury mark on the victim, who was examined on the third day of the occurrence, does not conclusively negate the forceful oral evidence given by the prosecutrix. In view of the above, supporting the impugned judgment and order, the leaned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant holding him guilty of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. 18. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent, has relied on the decision, held in the case of State of UP v. Babul Nath, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 29 . 19. Having heard learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, I feel it appropriate to, briefly, scrutinize the evidence, on record. 20. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim, after coming to know about the incident from his said daughter and PW 2, in whose house the victim had taken shelter after the incident. The FIR has been exhibited by the informant as Ext. No. 1. In the said FIR, the material facts regarding the alleged rape and taking shelter by the victim in the house of PW 2 have been clearly mentioned. The said FIR was lodged on the very day of recovery of the victim girl i.e. on the following day of the night of occurrence. 21. Law is well settled that the FIR is not a substance of evidence. It can be used only to corroborate or contradict the maker of the same. This proposition is more appropriate, when the FIR is lodged by a person, other than the victim person. Here the informant, who lodged the FIR (Ext. 1) was the father of the victim and he deposed as PW No. 1. Supporting the contents, made in the FIR, PW 1 stated that his daughter was forcefully taken by the appellant, on the previous night at about 7.00 p.m. and that she was raped by the appellant, in the betel nut garden. The informant came to know about the involvement of the appellant from his said daughter. Supporting the contents, made in the FIR, PW 1 stated that his daughter was forcefully taken by the appellant, on the previous night at about 7.00 p.m. and that she was raped by the appellant, in the betel nut garden. The informant came to know about the involvement of the appellant from his said daughter. This witness was duly cross-examined, on behalf of the defence, but no material contradiction could be elicited by the defence. In the FIR it has been stated that on the next morning, at about 3.00 a.m., the appellant had thrown the victim girl to the road and that the victim girl had taken shelter in the nearby house of PW 2. This witness denied the suggestion that he did not mention, in the FIR, that the victim was not thrown to the road, in front of the house of PW2. 22. From the FIR, it appears that the house of the PW 2 was situated near the house of the appellant i.e. by the side of the road. In my considered opinion, there is no material contradiction in the FIR as well as in the evidence of P.W. 1. 23. A careful perusal of the FIR and the evidence of PW 1 transpires that the PW 1 was informed by the victim that she was forcefully taken by the appellant and the appellant, after committing rape on her, had thrown her to the road, near the house of the PW No. 2 in an unconscious state and that she had taken shelter in the house of the PW No. 2. 24. Supporting the evidence of PW 1, Mr. Safikur Rahman, who deposed as PW 2, stated that, on the fateful morning, after performing his Fazr Namaz (morning prayer), when he had gone out towards the road, he found the victim lying in front of his house. He also stated that he had offered her water and took her to his house. According to PW 2 he was told by the victim girl that she was forcefully taken by the appellant on the previous night and thrown to the road, after committing rape. This witness further stated that he informed the father of the victim i.e. PW 1 about the said incident. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence. According to PW 2 he was told by the victim girl that she was forcefully taken by the appellant on the previous night and thrown to the road, after committing rape. This witness further stated that he informed the father of the victim i.e. PW 1 about the said incident. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defence. He denied the suggestion that the victim did not tell him regarding rape and that he had falsely implicated the appellant, due to previous grudge. 25. Even after cross-examination of PW 2, the defence failed to demolish his evidence on material point. His evidence clearly indicates that he found the victim girl, on the road, in front of his house and that the victim was taken to his house for providing preliminary aid. His evidence, that he found the victim on the road in front of his house, early in the morning, that the victim girl had informed him about the incident clearly supports the circumstances reported by the victim. 26. The victim girl, deposing as PW No. 3, stated that, on 18.02.2009, at about 7.00 p.m., when she went to attend nature's call, the appellant had forcefully taken her to the nearby betel nut garden and committed rape on her twice. She further stated that she was also taken to the house of the appellant wherein she was again raped for two to four times. According to the victim girl, on the next morning, she was thrown to the road and PW 2, who found her on the road, had provided her water. She also stated that she had narrated the incident to PW 2, who informed her father. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of the said witnesses, leads to find sufficient corroboration on material point, i.e. regarding finding of the victim on the road, in the early morning by PW 2 and also about the disclosure made by the victim. The victim girl further stated that there was bleeding from her vagina due to forceful intercourse. The victim girl was cross-examined by the defence. But no contradiction, on material point, to render her evidence disbelievable could be elicited. Her evidence, regarding rape remained un-demolished. The victim girl further stated that there was bleeding from her vagina due to forceful intercourse. The victim girl was cross-examined by the defence. But no contradiction, on material point, to render her evidence disbelievable could be elicited. Her evidence, regarding rape remained un-demolished. There is nothing, on record, to find that either the victim girl or her parents had any ill feeling or grudge against the appellant so as to prompt them to falsely implicate him with rape, involving the honour, dignity and prestige of the victim girl and her family. The forceful evidence given by the victim and the circumstantial evidence given by the PW Nos. 1 and 2 sufficiently indicates the involvement of the appellant with the alleged offence. The basic argument, advanced by the defence, is that PW 2, due to his previous quarrel and out of grudge, in conclusion with the victim and her father had falsely implicated the appellant. No substantive evidence has been adduced to substantiate the said plea that PW 2 and the victim or her family had any grudge or ill-feeling against the appellant. Mere suggestion, put to PW 2, which has been stoutly denied, is not sufficient to believe that PW No. 2 had falsely implicated the appellant. That a part, even if the PW 2 had any ill-feeing or quarrel with the appellant, there is nothing to believe that the victim and her parents, who were not members of the family of PW. 2 had any reason to join hands with PW 2 to falsely implicate the appellant in a rape case that too involving the prestige and honour of the victim girl and her family. It is also hard to believe that any woman, would falsely get herself involved with a rape case, taking risk for her future prospect and putting at stake her honour and dignity, in the society. 27. PW 4 i.e. the mother of the victim supported the prosecution story regarding missing of the victim girl from their house. She stated that on the next day, her daughter was recovered on being informed by PW 2 and that her daughter had told her that she was raped by the appellant. Her evidence regarding missing of the victim girl lends corroboration to the evidence of the victim that she was forcefully taken by the accused, 28. She stated that on the next day, her daughter was recovered on being informed by PW 2 and that her daughter had told her that she was raped by the appellant. Her evidence regarding missing of the victim girl lends corroboration to the evidence of the victim that she was forcefully taken by the accused, 28. PW 5 stated that he came to know about the incident after about 15 days from the mother of the victim girl. His evidence, being hearsay evidence, is not vital for the case. 29. The Investigating Officer has been examined as PW No. 6. In his cross-examination this witness stated that, on 19.02.2009 at about 6.30 a.m., the victim was recovered from the house of Mr. Safikur Rahman (PW-2) and that she was sent for medical examination. He further stated that the house of the appellant and the PW 2 were adjacent and that both the houses were situated by the side of the road. 30. From the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, no contradiction, on material point, in respect of evidence of the prosecution witnesses could be elicited to render their evidence disbelievable. 31. The Medical Officer, who examined the victim girl, on 20.02009 i.e. on the third day of the occurrence, stated that no mark of injury or mark of violence either on the private parts or any parts of the body of the victim girl. In view of the delay in examination of the victim, the absence of mark of injury does not negate the oral evidence given by the victim girl. 32. From the above discussed evidence, it is clearly found that the evidence of victim girl is the sole testimony against the appellant. The victim girl, in her evidence, clearly stated that she was forcefully taken by the appellant i.e. without her consent and that she was subjected to rape. Her evidence that she was thrown to the street on the next morning in an un-conscious state finds support from the evidence given by PW 2. There is sufficient corroboration in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 on material point. Supporting the evidence of PW 3, this witness stated that she was thrown to the road after committing rape on her. 33. The victim girl in her evidence stated that she sustained injury on her toes. There is sufficient corroboration in the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 on material point. Supporting the evidence of PW 3, this witness stated that she was thrown to the road after committing rape on her. 33. The victim girl in her evidence stated that she sustained injury on her toes. The Medical Officer (PW 7) also noticed injury on the great toe of the victim. This medical evidence fortifies the oral evidence given by the victim girl. 34. In the FIR it has been stated that the limbs of the victim girl, were tied at the time of committing rape. However, the victim girl in her statement given as PW 1, did not say so. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged by the father of the victim. As held in the case of Babul Roy (supra) the FIR is not substantive piece of evidence. The FIR and the statement made under Section 164Cr.P.C. can be used only to corroborate or contradict the maker thereof. But in the case at hand the informant (PW No. 1) was not confronted with the said statement, made in the FIR. Therefore, the said discrepancy noticed in the FIR cannot be accepted to discard the evidence given by the victim. 35. As held in the case of Babul Roy (supra) if two views, on the evidence adduced are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted. In the present case, the forceful evidence given by the victim leads to no second view, pointing to the innocence of the accused. As held in the case of Rajesh Patel (supra), though exaggerations and contradictions found in the evidence of prosecutrix may raise doubt about the veracity of the evidence of the prosecutrix, in the present case, no such contradiction or exaggeration, on material point, has been noticed. Hence, the above cited decision does not help the appellant. 36. In the present case, the prosecutrix has clearly stated, without any embellishment, that though the appellant had committed rape on her, after forcefully taking her and that she was thrown to the street, in the next morning. PW 2's evidence that he found her on the road in the early morning i.e. after offering Fazr Namaj (morning prayer) supports the evidence of the prosecutrix on material point. PW 2's evidence that he found her on the road in the early morning i.e. after offering Fazr Namaj (morning prayer) supports the evidence of the prosecutrix on material point. Though the defence attempted to establish that the appellant has been falsely implicated, due to existing quarrel with PW 2, no evidence, in support of the said plea, has been adduced. Even the appellant, who was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., did not state anything indicating that he was falsely implicated by PW 2. There is no evidence or material on record to show existence of any enmity between the appellant and the PW 2 or between the appellant and the victim and her family. Therefore, the prosecution version clearly leads to the conclusion that the appellant had committed rape on her. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, no other view, suggesting innocence of the appellant has emerged. 37. In the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu (supra) the prosecutrix was subjected to gang rape. As alleged, she sustained major injury on the right of the neck below the jaw and other injury mark on her private part. In view of the absence of injury on her private part, the court found it hard to believe the prosecution version. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said case, referred to the following observation made in Krishna Kumar Malik v. Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130 ): 31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix, showing several lacunae, which have already been projected hereinabove, would go to show that her evidence does not fall in that category and cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the said offences. 38. In the case at hand, the victim girl was raped by a single person and she alleged that she sustained injury on her great toe. She complained of no other injury. The medical officer also noticed injury on her great toe. No other injury was noticed either on her private parts or body. The facts and circumstances of the above stated case and the present case are not same. She complained of no other injury. The medical officer also noticed injury on her great toe. No other injury was noticed either on her private parts or body. The facts and circumstances of the above stated case and the present case are not same. That apart, the evidence of the prosecutrix, on material points remained un-demolished. Her evidence has been duly corroborated by the PW No. 2. Hence, there is no difficulty in relying on her evidence. 39. In view of the above discussion, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that that there is sufficient force in the testimony of the prosecutrix. In the absence of any evidence regarding enmity between the appellant and the victim, it is hard to believe that the victim has falsely implicated the appellant at the risk of her and her family's reputation, honour and dignity. The evidence, on record, indicates nothing to believe that she had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant. She does not appear to have gained anything by such implication. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that her evidence is trustworthy and reliable and the same inspires sufficient confidence to believe her. 40. In view of the above, I find that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant had committed rape on the victim. In my considered opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions committed no error by holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376(1) IPC. Therefore, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Return the Lower Court records.