JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused/appellant and Mr. J. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This Jail appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment & order dated 29.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Court at Tezu, in Session Case No.28(LDV)/2018(State Vs. Otul Borgohain), sentencing the accused/appellant to undergo an imprisonment for a term of 6(six) years for the offence held to be committed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, are as follows: (i) An FIR dated 30.04.2018 was lodged by the husband of the victim before the Officer-in-Charge, Roing Police Station, informing that on 30.04.2018 at around 3.00 PM, while his wife(victim) went to Kangkong Pathar for bringing their cows; suddenly, the accused committed rape on the victim forcefully by blocking her mouth and brutally beaten her. (ii) The aforesaid FIR was received on 01.05.2018, and the Roing P.S. Case No.19/2018, under Section 376 of the IPC was registered against the accused. (iii) On the same date i.e., 01.05.2019, medical examination of the victim and the accused was conducted by the Doctor, whose opinion rendered after examination of the victim and the accused was that as per physical examination, there is no concrete evidence of sexual assault on the victim and there is no sign of evidence of recent sexual intercourse by the accused. (iv) The Medical Examination report of the victim as well as the accused is extracted hereinbelow without indicating the name of the victim. “ PROFORMA FOR INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL OFFENCE Session Case No.28(LDV)/2018 P-EXHIBIT NO.2 Date 28/02/2019 Sess. Judge Sd/- Illegible Requisition from Roing of Police Station Roing Vide his letter no Nil dated 01/05/2018 1. Name of the individual Smti XXX 2. Sex Female 3. Name of the Parents/Guardians W/o Shri XXX 4. Address Vill. Pachim Padam Pukuri PO Shantipur 5. Occupation Farmer 6. Cast Nepali 7. Married or Single Married 8. Age stated by 45 yrs/F 9. Persons accompanying or Brought by (1) Husband of victim (2) L/Ct. N. Tesia 10. Time & Place of Examination 10.45 Am D.H. Roing 11. Consent of the individual for Taken 12. In the case of minors, consent of The guardian And his/her sign. Or Left thumb impression. 13. Married or Single Married 8. Age stated by 45 yrs/F 9. Persons accompanying or Brought by (1) Husband of victim (2) L/Ct. N. Tesia 10. Time & Place of Examination 10.45 Am D.H. Roing 11. Consent of the individual for Taken 12. In the case of minors, consent of The guardian And his/her sign. Or Left thumb impression. 13. Name of the Nurse present at the Time of examination Ms. Radha Chetry 14. Marks of Identification Physical Examination :- (FEMALE) 1. Height 2. Weight 3. Breadth 4. Chest girth at the level of the nipple 89 cm 5. Abdominal girth at the level of navel 81 cm 6. General build and appearance 7. Voice Adult type 8. Teeth Carries present/adulthood 9. Hair long, normal texture 10. Axillaries Adult types, curly 11. Public long, curly, Adult type 12. Mammo-development of breast milk in 13. Generative Organs-development of Genitals Fully developed No sign of injuries seen. 14. Onset of Puberty date 15. Ossification report from the radiological Examination 16. Age 45 yrs 17. History 18. Date & hour when the female first made Complaint and the precise words employed 30/04/2018 at around 4.30 PM On road By her at the time, i.e. (a detailed Account of The occurrence as given by the women) 19. General Behavior Normal in appearance 20. Date & exact time when the rape was Said to have been committed On 30/04/2018 at around 4.30 PM 21. Place where it occurred on road 22. The exact circumstances under which The rape was committed (e.g) whether parties were standing or lying on the Ground lying on ground. Both hand hold by alleged accused person and the gaged itch cloth as per the victim. 23. Whether the female was menstruating At the time Yes 24. Whether she was sensible during the Whole time that the offence was Committed or under the influence of Alcohol or other intoxicants No 25. General felling of those accompanying The female towards herself and towards The accused As per the husband the accused person is a neighbour nefarious and person and had sexual contact with his wife Precious Occasion also. 26. Whether she uttered any cries or was too Terrified to do so As per her statement the she nitered cry 27. Clothing if changed, when Not 28.Whether bath was taken, when Not 29. Whether urine was passed when Yes 30. 26. Whether she uttered any cries or was too Terrified to do so As per her statement the she nitered cry 27. Clothing if changed, when Not 28.Whether bath was taken, when Not 29. Whether urine was passed when Yes 30. Whether motion was passed when Yes 31. Mental condition any signs of drunkenness If any Not under any intoxication. 32. Gait Normal 33.Intelligence Low 34. Demeanour 35. Examination of cloths including under Linen worn at the time of alleged rape And preserved for examination of No. undergarment worn. Petty coat greenish colour worn. a. Blood b. Semen(including grouping if possible) no any stained or mud dirt seen a cloths. c. Other discharge Not seen on cloth d. Mut dirt Not seen 36. Is venereal disease present? No 37. Genitals a. Public hair-length matted or not -long and matted and curly b. Valva Normal, no bruises or injuries c. Vagina no injuries seen d. Hymen Not intact e. Fourchette Multipara in type. f. Perineum No any injuries seen g. Cervix Normal No bruises or injuries seen. 38. Injuries to Mammae, Clecks, Lips Thighs :-Not seen 39. Smears a. From Vagina for spermatozoa and b. From Urethra for gonorrhea c. From sore for evidence of sryphilis or Cancroids Taken to be sent to lab. 40. Blood grouping examination if consent Available B’ Negative 41. Opinion A per the physical examination of the case there is no concrete evidences of sexual assault on the victim. Station:- D. H. Roing Date:-01/05/2018 Sd/-Illegible 01/05/2018 Signature of the Medical Officer EMO Session Case No.28(LDV)/2018 P-EXHIBIT NO.2(A) Date 28/02/2019 Sess. Judge Sd/-Illegible PROFORMA FOR INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL OFFENCE Requisition from Roing of Police Station ………….. Session Case No. 28(LDV)/2018 P-EXHIBIT NO.3 Date 28/02/2019 Sess. Judge sd/- Illegible Vide his letter no. Roing PS Case No. 19/2018 Dated 01/05/2018 1. Name of the individual SRI OTUL BORGOHAIN 2. Sex 30 yrs, Male 3. Name of the Parents/Guardians 4. Address Vill. Pachim Padam Pukuri PO Shantipur PS Sadiya, Distt. Tinsukia, Assam 5. Occupation Farmer 6. Caste Hindu, Assamese 7. Married or Single Married 8. Age stated by 30 yrs as per his own statement 9. Persons accompanying or Brought by (1) H/Ct. R. Tisso (2) Ct. J.Pertin 10. Time & Place of Examination 7 PM District Hospital Roing 11. Consent of the individual for Taken 12. In the case of minors, consent of The guardian and his/her sign. Married or Single Married 8. Age stated by 30 yrs as per his own statement 9. Persons accompanying or Brought by (1) H/Ct. R. Tisso (2) Ct. J.Pertin 10. Time & Place of Examination 7 PM District Hospital Roing 11. Consent of the individual for Taken 12. In the case of minors, consent of The guardian and his/her sign. Or Left thumb impression 13. Name of the Nurse present at the Time of examination Male attendant Sri Karik Pertin 14. Marks of Identification Old scar mark on right side of Jaw/submandibular area PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:- (MALE) 1. Height 2. Weight 3. Breadth 4. Chest girth at the level of the nipple 5. Abdominal girth at the level of navel 6. General build and appearance Appears healthy and well built 7. Voice Adult Male type 8. Teeth 32 Nos 9. Hair Normal Texture a. Scalp:- Norma d. Body b. Beard:- Short black e. Moustache c. Axillary :- Long curly f. Public long, curly and matted 10. History As per statement of the accused alleged victim was known to him for last 3 yrs (three) and they like each other and had sexual relationship but on the day of 30/04/2018 he did not have sexual intercourse with her. 11. General Behaviour Normal Behaviour 12. Mental condition any sign of drunkenness, if any Mentally sound and no any signs of drunkenness. 13. Whether bath was taken, when Not taken bath 14. Whether Urine was passed, when Passed many times since date of alleged occurrence 15. Stain on clothing or on body No stain on body or clothing seen 16. Injuries on clothing and on body No any signs or injuries 17. Injuries on genitals, Smears if any found on the body or 18. Lugol’s iodine test for virginal Epithelium on glands Genitals 19. Is venereal diseases present No 20. Genitals a. Pubic hair-length (Matted or not) Long curly & matted b. Penis Prepuce circumcised or not :- Not circumcised Smegma :- Full of smegma present and thick. Fremlum :- Normal & intact. c. Evidence of impotence:- No any injury found 21. Blood group examination if necessary 22. Opinion As per the physical examination of the case, there is no any sign or evidences of recoat sexual intercourse by the person by name, Shri Otul Borgohain. Station- D.H. Roing Date:- 01/05/2018 Sd/- Illegible Signature of the Medical Officer (Dr. c. Evidence of impotence:- No any injury found 21. Blood group examination if necessary 22. Opinion As per the physical examination of the case, there is no any sign or evidences of recoat sexual intercourse by the person by name, Shri Otul Borgohain. Station- D.H. Roing Date:- 01/05/2018 Sd/- Illegible Signature of the Medical Officer (Dr. N. Yirang) EMO Session Case No. 28(LDV)/2018 P-EXHIBIT NO. 3(A) Date 28/02/2019 Sess. Judge Sd/-Illegible (v) The Statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C was also recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 02.05.2018, in which, the victim has stated as under: On Oath As daily routine work on 30.04.2018, I went to Kangkong-Pather from my village Pachim Padam Pukuri, Shantipur to bring back our cattle/cows. Meantime, accused was following me and before I could reach my cows, accused all of a sudden caught hold of me and pushed me down on the ground in the middle of the road. Before committing the offence, accused punched and kicked on my thighs with his fist. Then accused pulled my nighty and petty coat upward and since I was not wearing under wear/panty, accused inserted his two fingers in my private part(vagina) and thereafter raped me twice. Even I could see private part(penis) of the accused. While raping, accused shut my mouth with my towel while holding my body tightly due to which I could not shout for help. In fact, no body passed by nearby the place of occurrence at the time of commission of offence against me by the accused. After raping me twice, accused once again punched and kicked on my thighs with his fist and disappeared into bamboo garden nearby. Due to forceful sexual as well as physical assault, I could not bring my cows on that day.” (vi) On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet dated 13.06.2018 was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roing, under Section 376 of the IPC against the accused. Upon committal of the case to the Court of Sessions at Tezu, the Court of Sessions, Tezu framed charge against the accused on 11.09.2018, to the effect that on 30.04.2018, in between 3.00 to 4.00 PM, the accused committed rape upon the victim at Kangkong Pathar, within the jurisdiction of Roing Police Station and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, which was read over to the accused/appellant. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. 4. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses including the official witness. PW-1 is the sister-in-law of the victim i.e., wife of the brother of the victim’s husband. PW-2 is the husband of the victim. PW-3 is the victim. PW-4 is the Doctor, who have examined the victim and the accused. PWs 5 & 6 are the seizure witnesses and PW-7 is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW-1, who is the sister-in-law, in her deposition, stated that though, she has forgotten the date and time of the incident, but one evening, the victim who happens to be the wife of her husband’s brother came back to house crying with a cow. When asked why she was crying, the victim had told her that the accused subjected her to rape on the way. In cross-examination, she stated that she has forgotten the time when the victim had came back. PW-2, who is the husband of the victim, in his examination-in-chief, stated that one day when he had came back from his work place, he found his wife crying in the house. On his query, the victim told him that when she had gone to the field to bring back their cattle, the accused committed rape on her. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police by filing an FIR, drafted by one Shri Rahul Lohar. He identified the FIR as P.Ext-1 and his thump impression as P.Ext-1(a). In the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that though, he don’t know the name of the accused, he can recognize him as the accused used to stay nearby their house. PW-3, who is the victim, in her examination-in-chief, has stated that she recognized the accused person who is present in the Court that day. On that day (day not mentioned), when she had gone to bring back her cattle grazing in the agriculture field, the accused caught hold of her and put cloth into her mouth and committed rape on her. She stated that agriculture field is nearby Dharang village and she was taken to Roing hospital by the Police personnel. In the cross-examination, she stated that that it is not true that she has not been subjected to rape by the accused. She stated that agriculture field is nearby Dharang village and she was taken to Roing hospital by the Police personnel. In the cross-examination, she stated that that it is not true that she has not been subjected to rape by the accused. PW-4 is the Doctor, who had examined the victim and the accused, in his examination-in-chief, reiterated what was found by him during the medical examination of the victim and the accused conducted earlier, stating that he did not find any injuries on any part of the body of the victim including her private part. PW-4 also reiterated what was found at the time of medically examining the accused on 01.05.2018, stating that he did not find any injuries on the body of the accused and also he did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse. MLC report of the victim and the accused prepared by him was identified by him as P.Ext-2 and P.Ext-3 respectively and his signatures present thereon as P.Ext-2(A) and P.Ext-3(A) respectively. Cross-examination of the PW-4 was declined. PWs-5 and 6 are the seizure witnesses, who testified in their examination-in-chief, by identifying their signatures present in the seizure list. PW-7 is the I.O. of the case, who stated that he is the Investigating Officer of the case and during the investigation, he had examined the victim and sent her for medical examination and on such examination, the EMO has opined that there is no concrete evidence of sexual assault. The Medical Officer had also examined the accused and after such examination, the Medical Officer had also opined that there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse. He further stated that in connection with the case, he had examined 4(four) witnesses including the victim. He further stated that the victim has stated before him that the accused has committed rape upon her twice including the present incident. Those PWs are the witnesses, to whom the victim has shared about the incident. The victim was also sent to the Magistrate for recording of the statement and the victim has stated before the Magistrate that the accused had raped her twice on that day and also physically assaulted her. On the basis of the above evidences, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 376 of the IPC. 5. The victim was also sent to the Magistrate for recording of the statement and the victim has stated before the Magistrate that the accused had raped her twice on that day and also physically assaulted her. On the basis of the above evidences, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 376 of the IPC. 5. On examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused denied having committed rape on the victim. 6. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidences, the learned Sessions Court, Tezu, by relying on the statements of the PWs 1 and 2, who are the sister-in-law and husband of the victim, respectively, has convicted the accused for an offence under Section 376 of the IPC. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court convicting the accused/appellant under Section 376 of the IPC, the learned Amicus Curiea has contended that in the instant case, the accusation levelled by the victim to the accused/appellant of committing sexual intercourse with her is not supported by medical evidence, as deposed by the PW-4, who had examined the victim as well as the accused/appellant. He also points out that the statement of the victim is not consistent. What was stated in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C has not been reiterated by her in the deposition made in the Court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by a medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belies the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. The Court, in such a case, shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the version of the prosecutrix is unsupported by medical evidence and there are inconsistencies in version of the prosecutrix. In support of his contention, Mr. Ratan, learned Amicus Curiea has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2006 10 SCC 92 (Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 8. Mr. In support of his contention, Mr. Ratan, learned Amicus Curiea has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2006 10 SCC 92 (Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 8. Mr. Tsering, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the victim in her deposition has made a categorical statement that when she had gone to bring back her cattle grazing in the agriculture field, the accused caught hold of her and put cloth into her mouth and committed rape upon her. The statement of the prosecutrix having not been shaken or impeached in the cross-examination, there is no reason why the statement of the victim made in the Court shall not be believed. He further submits that conviction for commission of offence of rape can be recorded on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if the statement of the prosecutrix is trustworthy and believable. In such a case, no corroboration either by a medical evidence or otherwise is required so long the statement of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy and believable. In the instant case, since the statement of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy and believable, the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Court is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. In support of the argument put forward as above, the learned P.P. has relied on a series of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are as under: (i) Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, reported in 2016 (12) SCC 288 ; (ii) Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., reported in 2013 (15) SCC 298 ; (iii) Moti Lal Vs. Sate of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2008 (11) SCC 20 ; (iv) Rajinder@Raju Vs. State of H.P, reported in 2009(16) SCC 69 ; (v) Bhupinder Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2003(8) SSC 551; (vi) State of U.P. Vs. Pappu@Yunus & Anr., reported in 2005 (3) SCC 594 ; (vii) State of Haryana Vs. Basti Ram, reported in 2013 (4) SCC 200 ; and (viii) Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 663 . 9. Rival contentions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties have received due consideration of this Court and the evidences brought on record have been meticulously perused by this Court. 10. Basti Ram, reported in 2013 (4) SCC 200 ; and (viii) Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2019 (5) SCC 663 . 9. Rival contentions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties have received due consideration of this Court and the evidences brought on record have been meticulously perused by this Court. 10. Insofar as the commission of offence of rape is concerned, law is well settled that the accused can be convicted for commission of an offence of rape on the basis of the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, provided that the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of the sterling quality. Though, evidence of the prosecutrix in the cases of rape or molestation is to be construed to be that of an injured witness, so much so that no corroboration is necessary, the accused, however, must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. The testimony of the victim in such cases, though, commands great weight but the same cannot necessarily be universally and mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration. Therefore, generally, the testimony of a victim of rape ought to be accepted as true and unblemished, it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny lest a casual, routine and automatic acceptance thereof results in unwarranted conviction of the person charged. The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience 11. In the light of the above, when the evidence brought on record is examined, beginning with the deposition of the prosecutrix herself, who is the PW-3, it is noticed that PW-3, the victim herself had stated before the Court that when she went to bring back her cattle grazing in the agriculture field, the accused caught hold of her and put cloth into her mouth and committed rape upon her. The agriculture field is stated to be nearby Dharang village and she was taken to Roing hospital by the Police personnel. In the deposition made by the victim before the Court, she did not specify the date on which the occurrence took place. 12. The agriculture field is stated to be nearby Dharang village and she was taken to Roing hospital by the Police personnel. In the deposition made by the victim before the Court, she did not specify the date on which the occurrence took place. 12. PW-1, who is the sister-in-law of the victim has deposed before the Court that though, she does not remember the date of incident, one evening, the victim who happens to be the wife of her husband’s brother came back to house crying with a cow. When the victim was asked as to why she was crying, the victim had told her that the accused subjected her to rape on the way. 13. PW-2, who is the husband of the victim has also deposed that one day when he came back from his work place, he found his wife crying in the house. On his query made to his wife, he was told that when she had gone to the field to bring back their cattle, the accused committed rape upon her. Thereafter, he reported the incident to the police by filing an FIR, drafted by one Shri Rahul Lohar, which has been exhibited as P.Ext-1. 14. The evidence of PWs-1 and 2 has not much of the significance as the same are statements made in the Court on the basis of what has been told to them by the prosecutrix. 15. Be that as it may, since the victim/PW-3 has categorically deposed that when she had gone to the agriculture field to bring back the cattle grazing there, the accused caught hold of her and put cloth into her mouth and committed rape upon her and the agriculture field is stated to be nearby Dharang village, there is no reason at this stage, not to believe the evidence of the PW-3/victim. However, the deposition made by the PW-3/victim is found to be too sweeping in nature. Therefore, notwithstanding the statement of the victim found to be too sweeping in nature, in order to sustain the conviction of the accused/appellant solely on the basis of above statement of the prosecutrix, some assurance of her statement to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court is deemed necessary. Accordingly, appreciation of the earlier statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as under Section 161 Cr.P.C is deemed apposite at this stage. 16. Accordingly, appreciation of the earlier statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as under Section 161 Cr.P.C is deemed apposite at this stage. 16. In the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement recorded of the victim by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roing on 02.05.2018, which has been extracted hereinabove, the victim/prosecutrix appears to have stated that on 30.04.2018, when she had gone to Kangkong Pathar from her village Pachim Padam Phukuri, Shantipur to bring back their cattle/cows, the accused who was following her, before she could reach the cows, the accused all of a sudden caught hold of her and pushed her on the ground in the middle of the road. Before committing the offence, the accused punched and kicked her on thighs with his fist. Then accused pulled her nighty and petticoat upward and since she was not wearing underwear, the accused inserted his two fingers in her private part and thereafter, raped her twice. While committing the rape on her, the accused shut her mouth with her towel and hold her body tightly, due to which, she could not shout for help. She further stated that after raping her twice, the accused once again punched and kicked on her thighs with his fist and disappeared nearby bamboo garden. Due to forceful sexual intercourse and physical assault, she could not bring back her cows on that day. 17. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, thus, is found to be in variation with what has been deposed by the victim in the Court. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, which has been perused from the LCR, the victim, while stating almost identical version of what was stated in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, had added yet another version of the story by stating that the accused/appellant forcefully raped her three times, while it was stated to be two times in the Section 164 Cr.P.C statement. Thus, it has been noticed that there has been a significant variation in the statement of the victim/prosecutrix made under Section 161 Cr.P.C, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and the deposition made in the Court. 18. Thus, it has been noticed that there has been a significant variation in the statement of the victim/prosecutrix made under Section 161 Cr.P.C, under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and the deposition made in the Court. 18. As have been noticed above that the victim stated that she was assaulted by the accused before committing rape on her by punching and kicking on the thighs of the victim, in the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C and also the statement of sexual intercourse simpliciter in the deposition made in the Court; when the deposition of the PW-4, the Medical Officer, who had examined the victim as well as the accused, it is noticed that the PW-4 did not find any injury on any part of the body of the victim including her private part. 19. It, therefore, follows that no doubt, it is correct to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, on the basis of solitary evidence of the prosecutrix provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of sterling quality. But, in the case in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix showing several significant contradiction as to the number of times the accused committed rape on her and no injury having been found on the body of the victim by the PW-4(Doctor) despite the victim having stated that she was assaulted by the accused by punching and kicking on her thighs before committing rape on her as well as after the rape was committed, the evidence of the prosecutrix is found to be not inspiring any confidence on this Court to make it appear to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and of the sterling quality so as to sustain the conviction of the accused/appellant in the instant case.. 20. For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Court, Tezu could not have recorded the conviction of the accused/appellant, under Section 376 of the IPC, by solely relying on the evidences of PWs-1 and 2. The impugned judgment & order dated 29.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Court at Tezu, in Session Case No.28(LDV)/2018(State Vs. Otul Borgohain), convicting the accused/appellant to undergo an imprisonment for a term of 6(six) years, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, is, therefore, hereby set aside and quashed. 21. The impugned judgment & order dated 29.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Court at Tezu, in Session Case No.28(LDV)/2018(State Vs. Otul Borgohain), convicting the accused/appellant to undergo an imprisonment for a term of 6(six) years, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, is, therefore, hereby set aside and quashed. 21. It has been informed that the appellant is presently in jail. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. 22. The Registry shall communicate this order to the learned Sessions Court, Tezu forthwith. 23. The learned Amicus Curiea shall be paid the remuneration, to which the Amicus Curiea is entitled to under the rules. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of. Send back the LCR.