JUDGMENT : MITALI THAKURIA, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent no. 1. 2. This is an appeal u/s 374(2) Cr.PC against the impugned judgment & order dated 26.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Rangia, Kamrup, Assam in Sessions Case No. 176/2016 arising out of G.R. Case No. 615/2015 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant under Section 376 IPC and thereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default Simple Imprisonment for 1 year. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.05.2015 at about 11 AM when the informant/victim was going by the side of gate of the accused, he called her into his residence and when she came into the house, the accused thrown her on his bed and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her and then he warned her not to disclose the incident to any person with the threatening of dire-consequence. Thereafter the victim/informant lodged the FIR only on 16.05.2015 with 2 days delay. 4. After receipt of the FIR, case is accordingly registered under Kamalpur police station as Kamalpur P.S. Case No. 83/2015 u/s 376 IPC and started the investigation. After completion of the prosecution, the case was charge-sheeted against the present accused/appellant u/s 376 IPC and after completion of all the formalities the case was committed before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon wherein Sessions Case No. 176/2016 was registered u/s 376 IPC and then it was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Rangia, Kamrup, Assam for trial. After receipt of the case record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused-appellant u/s 376 IPC, read over and explained, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 nos. of witnesses including the Investigating Officer (I/O). The defence took the plea of total denial while recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. but, did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his plea of innocence. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 nos. of witnesses including the Investigating Officer (I/O). The defence took the plea of total denial while recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. but, did not adduce any evidence to substantiate his plea of innocence. After hearing the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Rangia had convicted the present accused/appellant u/s 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default stipulation. 6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 176/2016, had preferred the present appeal before this Court. 7. Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted during the course of argument that the learned Sessions Judge failed to assess the evidence on record in its true perspective and thus arrived at a wrong decision convicting the accused/appellant u/s 376 IPC and hence same is liable to be set aside and quashed. He further submitted that the evidence of the PW-1 i.e. the victim of this case is found to be contradicted and it was not consistent to record conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. More so, the victim being 45 years old lady and such non-disclosure of occurrence immediately after the incident to her nearest relatives casts a serious doubt in regards to the veracity of the prosecution case. Rather, it establishes that she was the consenting party to have sexual intercourse with the accused/appellant. But, this aspect of the case was not considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the judgment and order. As a result, a grave injustice was caused to the present accused-appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced u/s 376 IPC. He further submitted apart from the inconsistency in the evidence of PW-1, the other PWs also made some contradictory statement and there are some exaggeration of the matter which they did not say before the I/O while recording their statements u/s 164 Cr.PC. 8. Mr. He further submitted apart from the inconsistency in the evidence of PW-1, the other PWs also made some contradictory statement and there are some exaggeration of the matter which they did not say before the I/O while recording their statements u/s 164 Cr.PC. 8. Mr. Ahmed further raised the issue that at the time of occurrence the inmates of the house of the appellant was also present but none of the persons from his house was examined by the I/O without citing any reason, which also create reasonable doubt in the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. More so, from the evidence of PW-8, the doctor, it is seen that he did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse with the victim who was examined within 3 days of the occurrence. But, without considering all these aspects of the case and the vital contradiction of the witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed the order convicting the accused-appellant and as such the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. Mr. Ahmed further submitted that at present the accused is in custody since last 6 years 3 months 29 days including his hajotee period. Hence, considering this period of detention also the accused is entitled for acquittal/release from this case. 10. Mr. Borthakur the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there is no evidence at all to support the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the victim was a consenting party and she wilfully entered into the house of the accused and had sexual intercourse with him. Further, the evidence of PW-1 is found consistent in every stage of the case and there is nothing to disbelieve PW-1/victim. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the conviction can be based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 11. Further the evidence of PW-2 is also one of the vital witnesses of the prosecution, which corroborates the evidence of PW-4 & PW-5 and thus supported the prosecution case. Mr. Borthakur accordingly submitted that the judgment and order of conviction was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by considering the evidence on record in its true perspective and hence there may not be any reason for interference in the judgment and order and accordingly submitted that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Borthakur accordingly submitted that the judgment and order of conviction was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by considering the evidence on record in its true perspective and hence there may not be any reason for interference in the judgment and order and accordingly submitted that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, this Court finds that before arriving in any decision, the evidence on record is to be scrutinised. 13. PW-1 is the victim of this case who stated that accused was known to her and at the relevant day of incident at about 11 AM while she was going to the field to tend the grazing cattle, then the accused met her on the road and called her to his house and then he took her inside his house. She further stated that at the relevant time of incident his wife was not present. However, his son was present at that time. Thereafter the accused committed rape on her and then she reported about the occurrence to the villagers as well as to her family members. Thereafter she lodged the FIR and she was also medically examined by the doctor. Her statement is also recorded by the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC. In her cross examination she stated that there is only one house between her house and with the house of the accused. She denied over the suggestion that the accused had not committed rape on her and that she lodged a false case as the accused rebuked her when her goats had damaged the vegetable garden of the accused/appellant. She also dined to the suggestion that all the family members of the accused/appellant were present at the relevant time of incident. But, she stated that the son of the accused was present at that time who saw the entire incident. 14. PW-2 deposed that on the relevant day of the incident she heard from the villagers that the accused had committed rape on the victim and then she went and confronted the accused, when he confessed that he committed rape and also confessed that he called the victim to his house and thereafter raped on her. 14. PW-2 deposed that on the relevant day of the incident she heard from the villagers that the accused had committed rape on the victim and then she went and confronted the accused, when he confessed that he committed rape and also confessed that he called the victim to his house and thereafter raped on her. In her cross-examination she denied to the suggestion put to her that she did not heard about the incident and the accused did not confessed his guilt and also denied to the suggestion that she deposed falsely against the accused/appellant. 15. PW-3 is the sister-in-law of the victim/informant and she accordingly deposed that the victim went to the field to tend the grazing cattle and then she saw her coming to house crying and on being asked by her the victim initially said nothing and thereafter in afternoon at about 3 PM she heard from one villager, namely, Amar Kalita that the accused had raped the victim. In the evening when the brother of the victim confronted with her then she stated the entire incident as to how the accused committed rape on her. She further stated that the victim was threatened by the accused/appellant with dire- consequence. But, thereafter when the accused was caught by the villagers he confessed his guilt. She further stated that the victim is very simple lady and she went in the grazing field alone on the day of the incident. 16. PW-4 the brother of the victim and also a vital witness of the prosecution, who deposed that he heard from his nephew that his sister is raped and when he asked his sister she narrated the whole incident that when she went to tend the grazing cattle then the accused called her to his house and raped her. Thereafter the accused was caught by the villagers and kept him tied in pillar of a temple and there the accused confessed to his guilt. In his cross examination he stated that he assaulted his sister when he came to know about the incident. Thereafter the accused was caught by the villagers and kept him tied in pillar of a temple and there the accused confessed to his guilt. In his cross examination he stated that he assaulted his sister when he came to know about the incident. However, he denied the suggestions that his nephew never stated to him about the occurrence, that the accused had not called the victim from the road and had not committed any rape on her, that the accused had not confessed to his guilt and that they had used the victim to file this instant false case against the accused as he is a government servant. 17. PW-5 deposed that while he was conducting puja in a village temple then many villagers gathered there and tied the accused in one electricity pillar and on query, he came to know that the accused was tied as he had raped the victim. He further stated that he had not asked the victim about the occurrence. 18. PW-6 Sri Amar Kalita deposed that the victim is his aunt (pehi). He came to know about the incident from one Madhabi. Then he rang the accused’s wife who confirmed the news. Thereafter he caught the accused and confronted him, who confessed his guilt. In his cross examination he denied the suggestions that Madhabi had not told him about the occurrence, that he did not ring up the accused’s wife who confirmed the news, that he did not catch the accused and confronted him and that the accused has not confessed to his guilt. 19. PW-7 is one Deepika Deka who deposed that on the day of occurrence a village meeting was held where she was also called for. The meeting was called for the misbehaviour of the accused with the victim. At this point of time the PW was declared hostile by the prosecution. 20. PW-8 is the M/O who opined that the genital findings are suggestive of recent forceful penetration. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that the redness present in the injury was due to urinary infection. 21. At this point of time the PW was declared hostile by the prosecution. 20. PW-8 is the M/O who opined that the genital findings are suggestive of recent forceful penetration. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that the redness present in the injury was due to urinary infection. 21. PW-9 is the I/O of the case who deposed that on receipt of the case by the victim he registered the case and himself took up the investigation of the case and conducted the pre-steps an sent the victim for medical examination and thereafter sent her to the Court for recording her 164 Cr.PC statement and after completion of investigation laid charge- sheet against the accused. Ext. 2 is the FIR. Ext.-3 is the ejahar filed by the victim/complainant bearing her thumb print, Ext.-4 is the sketch map and Ext. 5 is the charge-sheet. In his cross examination he stated that the place of occurrence was a single kutcha room. 22. PW-10 was the Bench Assistant of the then learned Judicial Magistrate who stated that the statement of the victim was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and Ext.-6 is the 164 Cr.PC statement of the victim containing the signature of the then learned Judicial Magistrate. 23. So from the above testimony of the PWs it is seen that there was no eye-witness to the prosecution. However, it is claimed by the prosecutrix that it is the son of the accused/appellant who saw the incident, as he was present at the relevant time of incident. But, the prosecution failed to examine the son of the appellant who as per the prosecutrix had seen the offence. Thus, there was no eye-witness and all the witnesses are being reported by the victim about the alleged incident. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the appellant committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim when she was crossing the road in front of his house and the accused called her inside the house. From the evidence of her sister-in-law it also reveals that she is a very simple lady and thus when the accused called her inside the house, she went there, wherein the accused forcibly committed rape on her. This part of the evidence of the prosecutrix also could not be rebutted by the defence while cross-examining her and thus there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. This part of the evidence of the prosecutrix also could not be rebutted by the defence while cross-examining her and thus there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. As per the learned counsel for the appellant, the FIR was lodged with two days delay and there is no proper explanation in regards to delay in lodging the FIR. But, on perusal of the Ext.-3 i.e. the FIR it is seen that she was threatened by the accused/appellant not to disclose the fact to others and thereafter when her family members and the villagers made an enquiry then only she had disclosed the incident and for this only there was a two days delay in lodging the FIR. It is also a case of an unmarried lady of 45 years of age and out of shame and due to threatening also she may not be in a position to disclose the facts to her family members as well as villagers and thus the ground taken in the FIR for lodging the same with two days delay also cannot be outrightly rejected. 24. Coming to the evidence of the other PWs, it is seen that PW-2 who is the neighbour of the victim also confronted with the accused when he confessed before her regarding the commission of rape on the victim. Similarly, PW-3 the sister-in-law of the victim also heard about the incident initially from one Amar Kalita and in the evening when the victim was asked about the same, she narrated the entire incident and thereafter when the accused was caught by the villagers, he confessed his guilt before the villagers. PW- 4, the brother of the victim also narrated the same incident and as per him also the villagers tied the accused with a pillar of a temple wherein the accused confessed his guilt. PW-6 also deposed that the accused confessed his guilt before him as well as villagers when he was confronted by the villagers. Thus, as per PWs-2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 it is seen that the accused confessed his guilt before these PWs, when the villagers asked about the incident to the accused. It is only the PW-7 who did not support the prosecution case and subsequently she was declared as a hostile witness. 25. Thus, as per PWs-2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 it is seen that the accused confessed his guilt before these PWs, when the villagers asked about the incident to the accused. It is only the PW-7 who did not support the prosecution case and subsequently she was declared as a hostile witness. 25. It is a well settled principle that the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the conviction cannot be based only on the extra-judicial confession unless there is any corroborating evidence. Here in the instant case it is seen that there is no evidence that the PWs had any enmity with the accused/appellant to depose falsely against him and their deposition also corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix who narrated the incident as to how she was raped by the accused/appellant by calling her inside his house even in presence of his own son. So there is no evidence that this witnesses will falsely depose against the accused/appellant regarding his extra-judicial confession. More so, it is also seen that when the accused made the confession there was no police personnel and he made the confession before the villagers before lodging the FIR against him by the victim. 26 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aftab Ahmed Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2010) 2 SCC 583 has held that extra judicial confession though a weak piece of evidence, can be taken into consideration if no animosity or motive is apparent. For ready reference, the relevant observations are extracted herein below:- “52. Though extra judicial confession is considered to be a weak piece of evidence by the courts, this Court finds that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that the evidence furnishing extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The evidence relating to extra judicial confession can be acted upon if the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased and in respect of whom even remotely nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused.” 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 SCC 614 held that even a single witness is sufficient if found to be trustworthy. The relevant observations are extracted herein below:- “14. We have already discussed above that it is open to the courts to record a conviction on the basis of the statement of a single witness provided the evidence of that witness is reliable, unshaken and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it was sought to be proved by only one eyewitness, nor can it be insisted that the corroboration of the statement of that witness was necessary by other eyewitnesses. …” 28. The learned counsel for the appellant also raised the issue that the victim was a consenting party who was a lady of more than 40 years at the relevant time of incident. But, there is no such evidence nor the prosecution could bring any statement from the PWs by cross-examining that the victim was a consenting party and if anything had happened between the appellant and the victim it was purely consensual. The only reason that the victim was a lady of more than 40 years at the relevant time of incident cannot be a justifiable ground to consider that she was a consenting party and sexual intercourse with the accused had happened only with her consent. 29. Coming to the evidence of the doctor/PW-8, it is seen that as per his opinion there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse on her person. But, genital findings are suggestive of recent forceful penetration. 30. In the genital examination of the victim, the doctor found the following:- (A) Genital organs:- Well developed, healthy. (B) Vulva:- Labia majora well opposed, labia minora partly visible on abducting thighs. (C) Hymen:- Recent tear at 6 O’ clock and 9 O’ clock positions with redness and tenderness present which bleeds on touch. (D) Vagina:- Redness and tenderness present around introitus with abrasion (red coloured 1 x 1 cm size on left side of introitus. (E) Cervix:- Healthy (F) Uterus:- Not palpable per abdomen. (G) Evidence of venereal disease:- Not detected at time of examination. (H) Vaginal swabs collected from:- Posterior fornix and around cervix. 31. (D) Vagina:- Redness and tenderness present around introitus with abrasion (red coloured 1 x 1 cm size on left side of introitus. (E) Cervix:- Healthy (F) Uterus:- Not palpable per abdomen. (G) Evidence of venereal disease:- Not detected at time of examination. (H) Vaginal swabs collected from:- Posterior fornix and around cervix. 31. However, it is seen that he did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse. But, the examination was found to be conducted after three days of the occurrence of the incident and hence probability of sign of recent sexual intercourse may not be available on her person. But, from the genital examination it is found that recent tear was found at the hymen and at the same time in vagina the redness and tenderness was found present with abrasion and in the hymen apart from the recent tear there was a redness and tenderness which bleeds on touch. So, these findings of the doctor is sufficient to establish the fact that there was a forcible penetration on the alleged victim though the spermatozoa etc. may not found in the vagina swab. Thus, the evidence of the doctor also supports the case of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to forceful penetration though there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2008 0 AIR (SC) 882 , has held in paragraph Nos. 9 as under: “9. A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix. What is necessary is that the Court must be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short Evidence Act) similar to illustration (b) of Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is own to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash kewalchand Jain (1990 91) SCC 550).” 33. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh , (1993) 2 SCC 622; 1993 SCC (Cri) 674 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 9 ; AIR 2010 SC 1 , placing reliance an earlier judgment in Rameshwar S/o Kalian Singh v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1952 SC 54 . A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 9 ; AIR 2010 SC 1 , placing reliance an earlier judgment in Rameshwar S/o Kalian Singh v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1952 SC 54 . Thus the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 34. So from the discussion made above it is seen that the prosecution could establish a case against the present appellant that he committed rape on the victim and thus the charge leveled against him u/s 376 IPC is proved beyond all reasonable doubt and thus this Court is of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge committed no error or mistake while convicting the accused/appellant u/s 376 IPC and sentencing him accordingly. This Court also is of the opinion that no interference is required in the sentence imposed on the accused/appellant and accordingly the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby upheld. 35. With the above observations, the criminal appeal stands disposed of.