JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This revisional application, under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order, dated 01.09.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Criminal Appeal No. 18(3) of 2012 whereunder the learned Sessions Judge upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the convict under Section 376(1) of IPC, passed by learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura on 28.06.2012 in case No. ST 62 (NT/K) of 2011. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State-respondent. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 24.04.2011 at about 6:30 p.m. while the victim prosecutrix (name kept withheld) was on way to her private tutor’s house at Pabiacherra, the convict-accused kidnapped her with allurement of marrying her and took her away to some unknown place where she was kept confined and the accused undergone intercourse with her at the time when she was kept confined. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim prosecutrix was below 16 years at that time and that after the FIR was lodged by P.W.1, the mother of the prosecutrix, the accused along with victim prosecutrix surrendered before the O.C., Kumarghat Police Station on 13.06.2011 and the accused was taken to custody. Medical examination of the victim prosecutrix was done by P.W.12 at Kumarghat Rural Hospital and a report was submitted. The victim prosecutrix was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailashahar and her statement was recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. Initially, a complaint was filed by the mother of the victim prosecutrix i.e. P.W.1 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.05.2011 and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed O.C. of the Kumarghat P.S. to register it as FIR and to investigate it. The FIR was registered on 07.06.2011 under Sections 366/34 of IPC and after investigation police submitted Charge-sheet under Sections 366 (A) and 376(1) of IPC. 5. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and thereafter in course of trial, learned Asstt. Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376(1) of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the victim prosecutrix. 7. Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376(1) of IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses including the victim prosecutrix. 7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and in his turn, the accused declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing but a bare denial of the prosecution case. 8. Learned Asstt. Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated 28.06.2012 acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 366(A) of IPC but found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 (seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/in default of payment to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months. 9. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal appeal No. 18(3) of 2012 in the Court of Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar and the learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment dated 01.09.2012 upheld the conviction and maintained substantive sentence but for nonpayment of fine directed S.I. for 6(six) months. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik that so far the prosecution case is concerned no charge of rape has been proved since the victim prosecutrix herself has not stated anything that she was raped. The medical evidence of P.W.12 also does not support that there was rape of the victim immediately before they surrendered at Kumarghat P.S. The statement of the victim prosecutrix was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14.06.2011 itself i.e. the date when the victim was also produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and she made a clear statement that she had love affairs with the accused and that she willingly went with the accused and further she compelled him to marry her. In her cross examination she admitted that she made such statement but she stated that as advised by the accused she made the statement. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik also pointed out that the victim was accompanied by her mother when she was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement. It is the candid submission of Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel that the statement of the victim prosecutrix does not inspire confidence to arrive at a conclusion that she was kidnapped and raped. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik also pointed out that the victim was accompanied by her mother when she was produced before the Magistrate for recording her statement. It is the candid submission of Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel that the statement of the victim prosecutrix does not inspire confidence to arrive at a conclusion that she was kidnapped and raped. The trial Court arrived at a finding that the charge of kidnapping has not been proved. But on the same bundle of facts, the trial Court has arrived at a finding that she was raped whereas there is no definite statement of the victim that she was raped. Under such circumstances, learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik prayed for acquittal of the accused. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel, that the birth certificate of the victim was seized by I.O. but that has not been proved since the seizure witness did not support it. It is, however, submitted that even if it is accepted that the age is proved, no punishment under Section 376(1) can be recorded in the absence of any specific statement of rape. 11. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath with his usual fairness has submitted that the statement of the victim prosecutrix is most important in a case of rape and he fairly submitted that she has not stated that she was raped but she stated that she was sexually assaulted and that means that she was raped and that inference may be drawn from her statement. It is also submitted that the Doctor also found her hymen ruptured on 14.06.2011 and immediately before that she was in the custody of the accused. So, an inference may be drawn that because of rape her hymen was ruptured and so, the punishment under Section 376(1) of IPC may be maintained. 12. I am aware that a revisional Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of a judgment/order passed by an inferior Court and regularity of the proceeding while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The Court is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidence unless there is allegation of perversity. 13. In the present case, learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that there is no evidence or rape. Learned Addl. The Court is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidence unless there is allegation of perversity. 13. In the present case, learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that there is no evidence or rape. Learned Addl. P.P. also fairly submitted that there is no definite statement of rape but the victim made a statement of sexual assault which in the circumstances may be inferred that it was raped. 14. Let us now have a glimpse to the statement of victim prosecutrix who has been examined by the prosecution as P.W.4. In her examination-in-chief the victim prosecutrix made the following statement: “Informant is my mother. On 24042011 at about 6:30 a.m., I was proceeding towards the house of my private tutor namely Sajal Debnath of Kumarghat. While I reached over Hospital road of Kumarghat, all on a sudden accused Rinku Das came there with a Santro car and put me inside the car forcefully and also get me some smell in front of my mouth and nose and then I lost my sense. About 11:30 a.m. I regained my sense and then found that I was in the house of unknown person and unknown place. Accused also put vermillion over my forehead and bangles in the hands inside the vehicle. Accused kept me confined in the said unknown house of unknown place for about one month. Accused also assaulted me sexually in the said house against my will. After about one month residing in that unknown house, Rinku brought me at Kumarghat P.S. Police of Kumarghat P.S. arranged for my medical examination and then handed over me to my mother. I also made statement to Darogababu and my mother about in the incident. I also made statement before the Magistrate of the Court being arranged by police. I stated to Magistrate that I had gone with the accused willfully being tutored by the accused. Rinku Das was my private tutor for about three years. Rinku has his wife and children and also parents at home. Accused is present and identified.” 15. The above statement makes it abundantly clear that she only stated that she was sexually assaulted against her will. The word ‘sexual assault’ does not mean that she was raped. Rinku Das was my private tutor for about three years. Rinku has his wife and children and also parents at home. Accused is present and identified.” 15. The above statement makes it abundantly clear that she only stated that she was sexually assaulted against her will. The word ‘sexual assault’ does not mean that she was raped. It is a criminal case of rape and unless there is a clear and specific statement that she was raped, we cannot abruptly come to the conclusion that the statement made by the victim prosecutrix shall infer rape and nothing else. In her statement she stated that she made statement before the Magistrate and that was tutored by the accused. Her statement was recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and she proved her signature in the statement which she did not deny. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she stated: “I am having love affair with Rinku Das for last two and half years and I willingly went away with Rinku. He did not kidnap me. I compelled him to marry me and take me away from my house.” Though the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been examined but since it was a statement recorded in a judicial process and since the victim prosecutrix did not deny that statement it may be taken into consideration for appreciation of total evidence on record so far as the conduct of the prosecutrix is concerned. The prosecutrix before the Court stated that she was sexually assaulted and the accused kidnapped her and that something was put before her nose and, therefore, she lost senses but no such statement was made by her in her previous statement. According to the prosecution she was kidnapped on 24.04.2011 and she along with accused surrendered before O.C. of the P.S. on 13.06.2011 i.e. after more than 1 and half months. So, during that period, if she was forcefully kidnapped she would raise alarm and make attempt to escape from the custody of the accused. Rather, the evidence of the I.O. is that she along with accused appeared at the P.S. and surrendered and she was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and she made a statement that she voluntarily went with the accused. The conduct of the victim prosecutrix, therefore, does not support that she was kidnapped by the accused as alleged by her. Rather, the evidence of the I.O. is that she along with accused appeared at the P.S. and surrendered and she was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and she made a statement that she voluntarily went with the accused. The conduct of the victim prosecutrix, therefore, does not support that she was kidnapped by the accused as alleged by her. So, the trial Court correctly acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 366(A) of IPC. 16. P.W.12, Medical Officer has stated that her hymen was ruptured and there was no sign of any fresh tears and no injury in vagina or cervix. There was no fresh injury on her chest or private parts. According to the prosecution, victim prosecutrix and the accused surrendered before the O.C. on 13.06.2011. Had there was sexual intercourse there ought to have been symptoms of such intercourse in her private parts since she was examined medically on 14.06.2011. So, the charge under Section 376(1) of IPC cannot sustain and I cannot agree with the submission of learned Addl. P.P., Mr. Debnath on that score. 17. The birth certificate of the victim was seized which is proved as Exbt.4 and it shows that her date of birth was 06.06.1995 and so, on 24.04.2011 she was aged 15 years 10 months 16 days. Be that as it may, it is in the record that the accused was the private tutor of the victim prosecutrix and he was a married man. He being a married man taken away an unmarried young girl who was below 18 years. According to the victim prosecutrix she was sexually assaulted which means she was assaulted by the accused which amounts to outrage of modesty of the victim prosecutrix. 18. In view of the discussions made above, the conviction and sentence of the accused under section 376(1) of IPC cannot stand and, therefore, interfered and set aside. However, in my considered opinion, the accused committed the offence of outrage of modesty of the victim prosecutrix and so he is convicted under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment already undergone by him at the time of trial and during pendency of the appeal. 19. The revisional application accordingly stands disposed of. 20. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.