JUDGMENT : HITESH KUMAR SARMA, J. 1. This is a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order, dated 05.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 94/2004 acquitting the respondent-accused No. 3 from the charge under Section 376 of the IPC and the other accused-respondents from the charge under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC by holding them guilty under Section 323 of the IPC only and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each with a default clause for commission of offence under Section 323 of the IPC. 2. None appears for the revision petitioner on call. 3. The State respondent No. 6 is represented by Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 4. Since none appears for the revision petitioner, this Court has decided to dispose of the petition on merit after going through the records of the learned trial court, including the evidence of the witnesses. 5. The fact leading to the case is that ‘X’ is the victim in the instant case. ‘X’ was called by the accused-respondent No. 3, Md. Sadek Ali to his house for doing some household work and during her stay in his house, with a promise to marry her, the accused-respondent No. 3, Md. Sadek Ali committed sexual intercourse with her causing her pregnant. 6. On 04.04.2003, the accused-respondent No. 3, Md. Sadek Ali, came to the house of the complainant, i.e., the father of the victim ‘X’ for a discussion. Thereafter, when the victim went to the house of accused-respondent No. 3, Md. Sadek Ali, he fled away from his house and accused-respondent No. 5, Md. Billal Mia kicked the victim. The accused- respondent No. 1, Md. Sadar Ali gave fist ad blow on her person. 7. On the above facts, the complainant lodged the FIR with the Sorbhog Police Station, which registered a case, investigated into it, collected evidence, and finally, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondents under Sections 376/493/323/304 (Part-II) of the IPC. 8. After exhausting all the required legal formalities, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a formal charge against the accused-respondents under Section 376/304 (Part-II) of the IPC. The charge was explained to the accused-respondents to which they pleaded not guilty. 9. 8. After exhausting all the required legal formalities, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a formal charge against the accused-respondents under Section 376/304 (Part-II) of the IPC. The charge was explained to the accused-respondents to which they pleaded not guilty. 9. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses and the defence examined none. 10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.PC and in their such statements, they are found to have denied the accusations leveled against them. They also declined to adduce defence evidence. 11. As appears from the statement of the victim, the allegation of commission of rape was made against the accused-respondent No. 3, Md. Sadek Ali on the promise to marry her. The victim, i.e. ‘X’ stayed in the house of the accused-respondent No. 3, Md. Sadek Ali for several days in the month of June, 2003 but she appears to have admitted in her cross- examination that she slept with the mother of the accused-respondent No. 3 and did not stay separately. In the four rooms of the house of accused-respondent No. 3, Md. Sadek Ali, other members of the family used to sleep. She has admitted that she has not disclosed the allegation of commission of rape on her person to anybody. 12. Admittedly and evidently, she is above 18 years of age. The medical report also states her age to be 18 years or above. There is no corroborative evidence to substantiate her accusation. It is a fact that in a case under Section 376 of the IPC, the evidence of the victim can be relied upon if it inspires confidence. But, in the instant case, although the victim was a major, she did not disclose about the allegation of rape committed on her person to anybody and she kept mum. That apart, so far the allegation under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC is concerned, there is no such materials to prove the same. Even she is not the wife of accused-respondent Md. Sadek Ali and as such the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) is not attracted in this case. The only evidence led by the victim as well as the other witnesses for the prosecution is in respect of assault on the victim by accused-respondent No. 1, Md. Sadar Ali and accused-respondent No. 5, Md. Billal Mia. Sadek Ali and as such the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) is not attracted in this case. The only evidence led by the victim as well as the other witnesses for the prosecution is in respect of assault on the victim by accused-respondent No. 1, Md. Sadar Ali and accused-respondent No. 5, Md. Billal Mia. That being so, they committed an offence under Section 323 of the IPC and the learned trial court on the basis of evidence on record, convicted the accused-respondents under Section 323 of the IPC. 13. The evidence on record does not disclose an offence under Sections 376/304 (Part-II) of the IPC and therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality requiring interference by this Court. 14. Therefore, this revision petition stands dismissed on merit. 15. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.