JUDGMENT
R.B. Misra, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and Order dated 28.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Sessions Trial No. 22 (ST/B) of 1999 holding the accused-appellant guilty under Section 354 of IPC, thereby sentencing him to undergo R. I., for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one month.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.9.1998 at about 21-00 hours the accused Babul Sarkar forcibly broken open the bamboo made jhap/door of the hut of Smti. Sandhya Rani Debnath, entered inside the hut and forcibly committed rape on her. On the basis of the FIR, lodged by Smti. Sandhya Rani Debnath on 22.9.1998, Belonia P.S. Case No. 121/1998 under Sections 448/376 of IPC was registered. It was indicated in the FIR by the victim herself that on 21.9.1998 at about 9.00 p.m. the accused entered inside her hut and despite her resistance the accused had overpowered her and had laid her on her cot and forcibly committed rape on her. She raised cry calling the name of the accused, thereupon seeing the neighbours coming towards her house accused escaped away from her house.
3. The Investigation Officer recorded statements of some witnesses, seized the petticoat of the informant, arranged her medical examination at Belonia Hospital and also produced her before learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Belonia for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter on completion of investigation charge-sheet against the accused Babul Sarkar was submitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance had committed the case to the Session Court.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely, (1) P.W. 1, Smti, Sandhya Rani Debnath, (2) P.W. 2, Shri Subhash Paul, (3) P.W. 3, Shri Swapan Paul, (4) P.W. 4, Smti. Seuli Rani Paul, (5) P.W. 5, Shri Ranjit Majumder, (6) P.W. 6, Shri Tushar Kanti Bhowmik, (7) P.W. 7, Shri Uttam Debnath, (8) P.W. 8, S.I. Dipak Das, (9) P.W. 9, Shri Asish Paul and (10) P.W. 10, Dr. B.K. Sen. During examination of the prosecution witnesses the Exbt. 1, written F.I.R., Exbt. 1/1, signature of P.W. 1 in the written F.I.R., Exbt. M.O.I., one patticoat, Exbt. 2, signature of P.W. 1 in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Exbt. 1/2, signature of P.W. 6 in the F.I.R., Exbt. 1/3, endorsement and signature of O/C, Belonia P.S. on the body of the F.I.R., Exbt. 1/4, prescribed form of F.I.R. duly filled in by the O/C, Belonia P.S., Exbt. 3, seizure list of petticoat, Exbt. 4, hand sketch map of P.O., Exbt. 4/1, Index of hand sketch map, Exbt. 2/1, statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., Exbt. 2/2, signature of P.W. 9 in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Exbt. 5, report of Medical Officer, were also proved.
5. P.W. 1, the victim/prosecutrix, who lodged the F.I.R. is the sole eye witness of the occurrence. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are very close neighbours of the P.W. 1 who have rushed to the house of P.W. 1 immediately after hearing her cries. P.W. 2 also a neighbour, who heard the cries of the victim at the relevant time, however did not go there. P.Ws 5 and 6 are also the residents of that locality, who were informed by the informant. P.W. 6 is the scriber of the F.I.R. P.W. 9 learned SDJM, Belonia at the relevant time had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.W 10 the Medical Officer had examined the victim/prosecutrix on production by the I.O. P.W. 8 is the I.O. of the case.
6. The defence examined none except denial of the prosecution story under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with further indication in the cross-examination that the prosecutrix used to purchase rice from the shop of the accused on credit and when the accused demanded the price she made the false allegation against him.
7. P.W. 1, the victim/prosecutrix in her deposition stated that on the date of incidence, when he was residing in a very small thatched hut of bamboo made door, accused Babul Sarkar forcibly broken the door of her hut and entered inside the hut and forcibly pulled her saree, blouse and petticoat and committed rape on her. On raising alarm many neighbours/villagers were gathered since she was living alone as her husband had deserted her six years back and she was surviving by daily labour work. The victim/prosecutrix had informed the village Pradhan about the said incidence, who had advised her to inform police. Consequently an F.I.R. was lodged and S.I. of police visited her house and had seized her petticoat (under garment) and she was examined by the Medical Officer of Belonia Hospital. In her cross-examination she admitted that she is mother of her five years daughter who is living with her parents at Kanchannagar. The victim/pro secutrix also denied in her cross-examination that she used to purchase rice from the shop of the accused on credit and did not pay the price on demand and when the accused demanded the price she instituted the case falsely. P.Ws. 3 and 4, the husband and wife, residing in neighbour of the victim, came to the house of the victim after hearing the alarm and had found that the victim was standing in front of her door and on query she told that the accused Babul Sarkar came to her house. P.W. 2 had heard the cries of the victim but he did not go to her house. P.Ws. 5 and 6 had mentioned that the victim had informed about committing of rape on her. P.W. 6 however, stated that he wrote the F.I.R. as dictated by the victim. P.W. 10, the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer of Belonia Hospital had examined the prosecutrix on 22.9.1998 at 2.00 p.m., i.e. on the following day of the occurrence and had indicated that no evidence of any recent sexual intercourse was available.
8. Learned Additional Session Judge after analyzing the prosecution and medical evidence has rightly found that the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC was not proved. However, on the basis of the prosecution witnesses, attending circumstances and relying on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix has arrived at a finding that ingredients of Section 354 of IPC was proved and the accused was said to have outraged the modesty of the victim/woman as he had gone with ill motive to the house of the victim. 9. In the present facts and circumstances, after going through the prosecution witnesses, exhibits and other materials and evidence it becomes evident that the testimony of the sole victim/prosecutrix was convincing and the corroboration of other witnesses is not required so far direct evidence is concerned. The sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix inspires confidence. Therefore, the verdict of the Sessions Court is liable to be affirmed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamalanantha v. State of Tamil Nadu in . In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dayal Sahu in , it was held that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and the same is accepted by the Court, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration of her testimony is required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the same. Similar view was also taken by Apex Court in Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and Anr. in that the conviction on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix alone is permissible, but that is in a case where the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. In (State of H.P. v. Shreekant Shekari), the Supreme Court has held that in the matter of rape, the testimony of victim can be relied upon without corroboration in material particulars. So much so, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the victim on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony.
10. In the present facts and circumstances, after going through the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 28.9.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, the verdict of the trial court holding guilty of the accused for offence under Section 354 of IPC is upheld. However, in view of the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by this Court, the parties are at liberty to avail the benefit of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence against the appellant/accused. The accused has indicated for endeavouring for compounding the offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and as assured for and on behalf of the accused that if Rs. 40,000/- is acceptable to the victim/prosecutrix, the compounding of the offence could be finalized accordingly. The accused, at the instance of victim/prosecutrix, is at liberty to proceed for compounding and if such compounding is done within two months from the pronouncement of this judgment, then the conviction and sentence indicated under Section 354 of IPC shall not come in the way and shall accordingly come to an end, consequent upon such compounding, however, if the compounding is not materialized, the accused-appellant shall have to suffer the conviction and sentence as indicated by learned Additional Session Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in S.T. No. 22(ST/B) of 1999 and the benefit of order dated 29.11.1999 enlarging the accused shall come to an end and the bail bond shall have to be recalled.
With these observations and directions, this appeal is disposed of.