JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.05.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Case No. S.T. 58(ST/U) 2013. 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. P.K. Biswas, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P. Majumder for the appellant and learned Additional P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State-respondent. 3. The victim prosecutrix Kalpana (actual name kept withheld) set the law in motion by filing an FIR in writing before the Officer-in-charge of Nutun Bazar P.S. on 02.10.2011 alleging that she developed love affairs with accused Nayan Debnath @ Subhankar, a resident of Nutan Bazar Bangali Para and that Nayan Debnath during a period of six months before that day set up physical relation with her tempting/alluring her the prospect of marriage. On that day i.e. on 02.10.2011 at about 8:30 pm the accused called the prosecutrix near ADC office adjacent to Jatanbari Dak bungalow and set up physical relation with her and at that time Biswajit Saha and Kanchan Majumder caught them red-handed, but subsequently the accused Nayan Debnath fled away. The FIR was lodged at 22:45 hours and accordingly, O/C registered Nutan Bazar P.S. Case No. 43/2011 under Section 417 and 376 of IPC and an investigation was taken up. 4. In course of investigation, medical examination of the victim prosecutrix was done at Nutan Bazar Rural Hospital by PW6, Dr. Narendra Chandra Das and she was also produced before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amarpur and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Her vaginal swab was collected by PW6 and was examined by PW8, Dr. Sabyasachi Nath and the wearing apparels were examined by PW9, Dr. Subhankar Nath. In course of investigation, I/O examined all the material witnesses, recorded their statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter submitted charge sheet against the accused appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC. 5. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and thereafter on commitment of the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, charge was framed against the accused under sections 417 and 376(1) of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of investigation, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. 6. In course of investigation, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. The prosecution also proved the FIR, the Medical Examination Report, Scientific Examination Reports of vaginal swab and wearing apparels, statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. etc. The name of the prosecution witnesses and description of the exhibited documents and material have been mentioned in the Appendix to the trial Court’s judgment and, therefore, I refrain myself from reproducing them in this judgment. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and in his turn the accused declined to adduce any evidence. Defence case so far ascertained from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement of the accused made under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is of denial of the prosecution case and nothing else. 8. Learned trial Judge acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 376(1) of IPC, but found him guilty to the charge under Section 417 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment to suffer S.I. for two months. 9. Aggrieved, the convict-appellant preferred the present appeal. 10. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Biswas emphatically submitted that there is no evidence at all to hold the accused guilty of the charge under Section 417 of IPC. The victim prosecutrix, according to her own statement, was 20 years at the time of alleged occurrence and she herself stated that she was a consenting party to the physical relation with the accused as alleged. Her statement what is made in the FIR is totally contradictory to what she stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate and her deposition before the Court. Even her parents i.e. PWs 12 and 13, did not support her contention that there was any such occurrence. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed for an order of acquittal. 11. Learned Additional P.P. with all his fairness submitted that if the victim prosecutrix is believed in respect of her statement made before the Court, in her deposition, the conviction shall sustain. He however, fairly admitted that the material part of her deposition before Court is contrary to what she stated in the FIR and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 12. He however, fairly admitted that the material part of her deposition before Court is contrary to what she stated in the FIR and in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 12. It is a settled law that corroboration in cases of rape is not required if the statement of the victim prosecutrix inspires confidence. As a rule of prudence the Court sometime look for some corroborative evidence. Here in the present case, except the statement of the victim prosecutrix, I find no other evidence. PW6, the Medical Officer, who examined her on the following day of the date of occurrence could not give any opinion in respect of the allegation of rape and he stated that vaginal swab was collected and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which was examined by PW8 and PW8 opined that there was no sparmatozoa of human origin in the vaginal swab. PW9, the another Scientific Officer of the State Forensic Science Laboratory examined the wearing apparels of the victim prosecutrix seized by I/O and the witness stated that there was no seminal stain or spermatozoa in the wearing apparels of the victim prosecutrix. 13. In the FIR the victim prosecutrix stated that she developed love affairs with the accused and on 02.10.2011 at about 0830 pm she went behind ADC Office near Jatanbari Dak Bungalow where the accused met with her and set up physical relation with her. At that time Biswajit Saha and Kanchan Majumder of their village caught them red-handed and the accused fled away. She also stated that for six months prior to that day she developed love affairs with the accused and used to meet frequently with him and had undergone physical relation with the accused. The accused did so on allurement of marriage. So, according to the FIR she was caught red-handed by two persons, namely, Biswajit Saha and Kanchan Majumder, but none of them has been examined. 14. One Biswajit Debnath has been examined as PW1 and in his deposition he stated that having learnt from the villagers he along with PW2, Litan Deb, PW3, Raju Das and PW4, Shyamal Sarkar went to the place of occurrence and found the accused Nayan Debnath and the prosecutrix in a compromising position. On their asking the prosecutrix told them that they developed physical relation for last six months and the accused promised to marry her. On their asking the prosecutrix told them that they developed physical relation for last six months and the accused promised to marry her. Thereafter family members of both the parties came there and the accused fled away. In cross-examination he stated that he did not tell Darogababu that the prosecutrix told him that the accused developed physical relation with her on promise of marriage. He also stated that he did not tell Darogababu in his previous statement that he saw the accused and the prosecutrix in a compromising position. In view of the above statement of PW1 in cross-examination, the material part of his examination-in-chief goes since the incriminating part of the statement was first made before the Court which was not stated before the I/O. PWs 2, 3 and 4 stated that they also went to the place and at that time prosecutrix told them that she had love affairs with the accused and the accused promised to marry her. The father and mother of the prosecutrix, who were examined as PWs 12 and 13 curiously made different statement. The father i.e. PW12 was declared hostile. In his examination-in-chief he stated that in the year 2010 at about 8/830 pm on one Sunday he returned from the market and saw a crowd in the Dak Bungalow field where he found his daughter and also accused Nayan Debnath. His daughter told that Nayan tried to kidnap her. The accused Nayan then went away. Thereafter he went to the Police Station and filed the case. Father of the accused was also there. He further stated that his daughter did not tell him anything else. He also stated that the father of the accused wanted to give him Rs.5 Lakh, 2 Lakh and 3 Lakh, but he did not accept it. He was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and in his cross-examination he stated that he did not tell Darogababu that his daughter told him that she had developed love affairs with accused Nayan and that the accused promised to marry her and taking advantage of that promise the accused raped her continuously for six months. He also stated that he did not tell Darogababu that accused Nayan Debnath was a cheater and cheated his daughter. 15. PW13, the mother of the victim practically stated nothing in her deposition. 16. The prosecutrix was examined by the prosecution as PW11. He also stated that he did not tell Darogababu that accused Nayan Debnath was a cheater and cheated his daughter. 15. PW13, the mother of the victim practically stated nothing in her deposition. 16. The prosecutrix was examined by the prosecution as PW11. In her deposition in respect of the material allegation she stated that she developed love affairs with the accused because of consistent persuasion of the accused and thereafter started physical relation. For continuous six months the accused had physical relation with her for 4 to 5 times. On 02.10.2011 the accused called her over telephone and stated that he would take her to Dharmanagar. Accordingly, the accused came in the evening and took her to the jungle behind ADC Office and had sexual relation with her. Thereafter she wanted to go with the accused. The accused took her on the road and after going to some extent he left her near Panchayat Office and went away. Then she cried out and local people came. She told the local people that the accused raped her on the promise of marriage and was going away. The local people caught the accused and took him to the Police Station. On that day she filed the FIR before O/C, Nutan Bazar P.S. and Raju Das wrote the FIR and she put her signature in the FIR marked as Exbt.P.1/1. This material allegation made by the victim prosecutrix in her statement is conspicuously absent in the FIR, which was lodged immediately after the occurrence. A totally contradictory story has been narrated by her in her deposition than what she stated in her earlier statement in the FIR. So, no implicit reliance can be placed on the version of the victim prosecutrix. To sustain a charge under Section 417 of IPC it has to be proved that the accused made a promise and thereby cheated the victim. Except victim prosecutrix no other witness stated that the accused made such promise. PWs 1 and 2 simply stated that the victim prosecutrix told them that the accused allured her making promise of marriage, but though the accused was present before those witnesses, there is no statement from the mouth of those witnesses that the accused made any such promise in presence of those witnesses. PWs 1 and 2 simply stated that the victim prosecutrix told them that the accused allured her making promise of marriage, but though the accused was present before those witnesses, there is no statement from the mouth of those witnesses that the accused made any such promise in presence of those witnesses. Therefore, this allegation of cheating by way of promise allegedly made by the accused is quite doubtful and based on such doubtful evidence it was not proper for the trial Court to record conviction under Section 417 of IPC. 17. The victim prosecutrix was 20 years according to her own statement and she was quite literate. She clearly made statement that she had love affairs with the accused and voluntarily undergone physical relation with him. While she lodged the FIR she stated that there was allurement of marriage, but that statement remains unfounded because there is no other evidence to support her. Since the victim made different statement at different stage, her such statements cannot be taken to confidence to record a conviction in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. Therefore, I think the appeal should be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.05.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Case No. S.T. 58(ST/U) 2013 is set aside. 18. Send back the lower court records along with a copy of this judgment.