JUDGMENT Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara in Sessions Case No. 26/2010. By the said judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees four thousand) to the victim. 3. As per prosecution case, on 15-12-2009 at about 8.30 in the evening when the informant (victim) was alone in her house, the appellant trespassed into the house being armed with a dagger and committed rape on her against her will. He also threatened the victim not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. A complaint was lodged by the victim on 17- 12-2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Goalpara, which was forwarded to police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation. Treating the said complaint as an FIR, police registered Goalpara PS Case No. 547/2009 u/s 457/376/506 IPC and on conclusion of the investigation laid charge-sheet against appellant under sections 457/376/506 IPC. 4. In course of trial, learned Addl. Sessions judge framed charges against all the appellant u/s 457/376(1)/506 IPC IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. In order to bring home the charges, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. On appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/s 376 IPC and awarded sentence as has been indicated above. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. R. Ali and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Mr. T.K. Mishra. Also scrutinized the evidence brought on record. 7. The first witness examined by the prosecution was the victim herself, who lodged the FIR. In her evidence, the victim deposed that at about 8.30 in the evening, while she was alone in her house, the accused came to her house and asked her whether she was ready to marry him. When she turned down his proposal, the appellant forcibly laid her on bed, torn her maxi and committed rape on her. She also stated that the appellant had a dagger in his hand. Having seen the dagger, she did not raise alarm. When she turned down his proposal, the appellant forcibly laid her on bed, torn her maxi and committed rape on her. She also stated that the appellant had a dagger in his hand. Having seen the dagger, she did not raise alarm. She further stated that when her mother came back home,, she told her mother about the occurrence, who informed her elder sister Anwara (PW-4). She also stated to have informed her sister-in-law about the occurrence. During cross-examination, it was elicited that the accused/appellant was a neighbor to the victim and there were four rooms in her house, which were occupied by her parents, brother, sister, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law. She further stated that at the time of occurrence her father was working at the go-down, her mother and sister went to the house of her maternal uncle at distance of 150 hands, her brother went to his own work and uncle and aunty, who were also staying in the same house had gone to the house of their son. During cross-examination of this witness it was also elicited that on the eastern side of their house they have a grocery shop, which was run by PW-4 Anwara. The accused also had a grocery shop in front of their house across the road. She further stated that there were three other shops in the vicinity of their house. It was also elicited that the public road is adjacent to their house where the occurrence took place. It was elicited in her cross-examination that there was a market by the side of their house and her mother came after 1/2 hour of the occurrence and the rest of the family members arrived home at about 9/10 O''clock at night. 8. Pw-2 is the mother of the victim. According to her, she came home at about 9 O''clock and found that the victim was weeping and her clothes were torn. On being asked by PW-2, the victim told that the accused committed rape on her. Immediately he called PW-4 and after few days of the occurrence the case was lodged. She further deposed that PW-4 resided with her husband in the same house divided by a partition wall. 9. Pw-3 father of the victim stated that he came to know about the occurrence from his wife PW-2. Immediately he called PW-4 and after few days of the occurrence the case was lodged. She further deposed that PW-4 resided with her husband in the same house divided by a partition wall. 9. Pw-3 father of the victim stated that he came to know about the occurrence from his wife PW-2. He further stated, that after having come to know about the occurrence he remained silent out of shame and came to know about the case after three days of lodging the complaint. 10. Pw-4, the elder sister of the victim stated that at about 9 O''clock when she was in her house, her mother called her and when she came to the house of the victim, she found the victim weeping. The victim also told her (PW-4) that while she was making ''biri'' in the evening, accused came and committed rape on her. PW-4 also stated to have seen the wearing apparel of the victim being torn. This witness stated in the cross, that she was running a shop in the western part of the house of her mother and she used to sit in the shop daily. 11. Pw-5, the sister-in-law of the victim stated that the victim told her about the occurrence after 8/9 days. PW-6 was the witness to the seizure list by which the torn maxi of the victim was seized. According to PW-7, mother of the victim told him about the occurrence. 12. A dispassionate scrutiny of the oral testimony of all the prosecution witnesses would show that except, the victim (PW-1), no other witness was present at the time of occurrence and all other witnesses were post occurrence witnesses. PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5, mother, sister and sister-in-law of the victim were also not present in the house at the time of occurrence and they came to know about the occurrence only from the victim. The PW-1, the victim stated in her evidence that at about 9/9.30 at night, all the members of her family came back and she told about the occurrence to PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5. PW-5 stated that she came to know about the occurrence after 8/9 days from the victim. Evidently PW-5 was the resident of the same house staying in a different room. PW-5 stated that she came to know about the occurrence after 8/9 days from the victim. Evidently PW-5 was the resident of the same house staying in a different room. Therefore, though PW-1 stated that she informed the PW-5 immediately after the occurrence at about 9.30 pm, such statement of PW-1 was belied by PW-5, who stated that she was told about the occurrence after 8/9 days. The statement of the victim was also recorded u/s 164 CrPC, which was proved as Ext.-5. The narration of the occurrence in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, as reflected in Ext.-5 was inconsistent and contradictory with her evidence in court. Though, in her evidence she stated, that the accused trespassed into the house taking advantage of the absence of other inmates and made a proposal for marriage and on her refusal, the accused forcibly committed rape on her and her wearing apparel have been torn, in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, she made a different statement. In her previous statement she stated that the accused has been proposing her for last one year, but she did not agree to the proposal and on the date of occurrence when the accused came to her house and had shown her the dagger, out of fear she submitted to the accused and accordingly she went to bed, where he committed rape on her against her will. Evidently the maxi which was alleged to have been seized was also not produced in court. It is also noticed that occurrence took place at about 8.30 in the evening in a commercial place, inasmuch as, there were at least 4/5 shops in the vicinity and the shop run by PW-4 was in the same house, where the occurrence took place. When the victim was subjected to forcible sexual assault in the house, it is difficult to understand that PW-4, who was admittedly in her shop in a different room of the house, was not even aware about the occurrence and she came to know about the occurrence only when her mother told her at 9 O''clock after coming home. In her previous statement the victim stated that all the inmates of her house went out for a social visit to the relatives'' house, but in her deposition in court she made a different statement. In her previous statement the victim stated that all the inmates of her house went out for a social visit to the relatives'' house, but in her deposition in court she made a different statement. What is evident from the oral testimony of the victim is that her evidence had suffered from glaring inconsistencies with her previous statement and she had considerably improved and embellished her version in court. This apart, the evidence of the PW-5 residing in the same house, that she was told about the occurrence after 8/9 days, PW-4, who was present in the shop adjacent to the room, where the occurrence took place and the evidence of the father of the victim that he came to know about lodging the complaint after three days also raises doubt about the veracity of the oral testimony of the PW-1. 13. True it is, in a case of non-consensual sexual assault, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the sole testimony of the victim if her testimony is found to be reliable or she can be considered a witness of starling quality and it may not be necessary to seek for independent corroboration. However, in view of the glaring inconsistencies in the version of PW-1, the victim, at different stages of the proceeding and the attending facts and circumstances as indicated above, the PW-1 can by no stretch of imagination be held to be a witness falling in the category of fully reliable witness. Therefore, in my considered view, it would be unsafe to base conviction on the sole testimony of PW-1, the victim without corroboration from other independent evidence. Evidently except the victim, there was no other witness to the occurrence and prosecution case was banking on the sole testimony of PW-1. Once the testimony of PW-1 is discarded, prosecution is left with no evidence, which could support its case. 14. Situated thus, I have no hesitation in my mind to hold that the prosecution evidence in the instant case was grossly inadequate to prove the charge u/s 376 IPC against the appellant or at least the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and as such, I am unable to concur with the finding arrived by the learned Sessions Judge in recording conviction and awarding sentence to the appellant u/s 376 IPC. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 376 IPC is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. 15. Since the appellant is on bail, the bail bond stands discharged. 16. Send back the LCR.