J UDGMENT : Kaushik Goswami, J. Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent, and Ms. R. D. Mojumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2] This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, Assam (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”), in Sessions Case No. 88/2017, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 341/376 of the IPC and was sentenced under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month and under Section 376 of the IPC to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 25 (twenty five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand); in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 6 (six) months. 3] The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24/02/2017, the victim lodged an FIR at Dhemaji Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on 23/02/2017 she arrived at Dhemaji Railway Station from Jonai by train, thereafter boarded a tempo, and got down at Forest Tiniali. At about 7:00 PM, while she was proceeding alone through a field on her way home, the accused/appellant, allegedly caught hold of her, threw her to the ground, forcibly removed her wearing apparel, and committed rape upon her. It is further alleged that after the incident, the accused told her that he had enjoyed it, challenged her to do whatever she wished, and then fled the place. It is also the prosecution case that on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 07/01/2017, when the victim met the accused on the road, he allegedly pulled her hair, tore the sporting garment she was wearing, and squeezed her neck, in respect of which she had lodged an ejahar before the police station. However, the said matter was subsequently compromised, as both the victim and the accused belonged to the same village and were related as brother and sister in the social sense. 4] On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-in-Charge of Dhemaji P.S. registered a case being Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 55/2017 under Sections 341/376 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused/appellant was put to trial. 4] On receipt of the F.I.R. the Officer-in-Charge of Dhemaji P.S. registered a case being Dhemaji P.S. Case No. 55/2017 under Sections 341/376 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and the accused/appellant was put to trial. 5] Charges under Sections 341/376 of the IPC were framed by the trial court against the accused/appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6] The prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses including the victim, her brothers and sister, the medical officer who examined her, and the investigating officer. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) was recorded. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances; however, he did not adduce any evidence. Upon hearing the parties, the trial court convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him thereof. Situated thus, the present criminal appeal has been preferred. 7] Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that except for the victim, there is no other evidence against the accused/appellant. He further submits that the victim by filing an affidavit before this court in the connected interlocutory application, i.e., I.A. (Crl) No. 132/2026, which was disposed of by this court on 31.03.2026, has turned her back on her deposition adduced before the trial court, which is to the effect that she was raped by the accused/appellant. He further submits that the medical evidence supports her stand taken in the affidavit before this court to the effect that the there was no rape committed on her. He accordingly submits that the prosecution having not proved the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned conviction and sentence is unsustainable in law. 8] Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that the victim who is personally present in the court in terms of this court’s order dated 31.03.2026, upon being questioned by her, has stated that she had filed the case against the accused/appellant due to personal grudge and no such incident alleged by her in the F.I.R. in question has been committed by the accused/appellant. Hence, it appears that the victim has lodged a false case against the accused/appellant and he has been convicted therein for no fault of his. 9] Similarly, Ms. Hence, it appears that the victim has lodged a false case against the accused/appellant and he has been convicted therein for no fault of his. 9] Similarly, Ms. R. D. Mojumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that the affidavit filed by her on behalf of the victim on 23.05.2025 in the interlocutory application is as per the narration made to her by the victim/respondent No. 2, which is to the effect that she was having an intimate relationship with the accused/appellant and that she could not say whether the sexual activity between them was forceful or conscientious. 10] We have given our prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11] The victim deposed as PW-1 during trial that while she was walking along a connecting road from Jonai Forest Gate to her house on 24.02.2017, the accused/appellant, who is known to her and belongs to her village, approached her, forcibly grabbed her, and raped her by the roadside. Thereafter, he fled after threatening her. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged. Though a suggestion was put to her during cross-examination that she had lodged a false case against the accused/appellant, she denied the same. 12] It further appears from the deposition of the doctor ( PW-2 ), who medically examined the victim, that there were no signs of forceful sexual intercourse. However, her hymen was not intact, and the ultrasonography report indicated that she was six months pregnant. No marks of violence were detected on her body or private parts during medical examination. 13] It further appears that her brothers, examined as PW-3 and PW-4 , deposed before the trial court that the victim informed them that the accused/appellant had committed rape upon her in a field. Similarly, her sister deposed as PW- 5. 14] It is evident from the trial court judgment that the conviction is based solely on the testimony of the victim. Undoubtedly, in a criminal case arising out of an offence of rape, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony inspires the confidence of the Court. 15] It is pertinent that, in the interlocutory application filed by the accused/appellant seeking suspension of sentence, respondent No. 2/victim filed an affidavit before this Court on 23.05.2025, stating inter alia: “4. 15] It is pertinent that, in the interlocutory application filed by the accused/appellant seeking suspension of sentence, respondent No. 2/victim filed an affidavit before this Court on 23.05.2025, stating inter alia: “4. That I state that due to some personal and physical issues, I was not in a proper state of mind on the day of the alleged incident i.e. 24.02.2017. I submit that I was having an intimate relationship with the Accused/Appellant and I cannot say with certainty that on that day i.e. 24.02.2017 my sexual activity with the Accused/Appellant was forceful or conscientious. 5. That I state that I have settled the issue with the Accused/Appellant as the FIR was filed upon mistaken facts. Furthermore, I came to know that at the time of occurrence the Accused/Appellant was juvenile. 6. That I state that due to the sentence of 25 years imprisonment to the Accused/Appellant his whole life would be ruined. He was a juvenile at the time of the offence. 7. That I state that I made the statement in the FIR as also before the learned Magistrate out of fear. I further state that I adduced the evidence before the Court on mistaken facts under duress. However, with the passage of time, more particularly when the sentence has been inflicted upon the Accused/ Appellant I have decided to settle the issue as an innocent Juvenile is being punished. 8. That I state that both the parties have agreed and we have no grievance against each other and we have no objection if the Accused/Appellant is acquitted and the instant criminal appeal is allowed.” 16] A careful reading of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the victim indicates a material departure from her version during trial. While before the trial court she alleged forcible sexual assault, in the said affidavit, she stated that she was in an intimate relationship with the accused/appellant and expressed uncertainty as to whether the sexual act on the date of occurrence was without consent. She further described the accused/appellant as innocent and a juvenile at the time of the incident. At the same time, the medical evidence (PW-2) does not indicate any signs of forceful sexual intercourse or physical injury. 17] On a cumulative reading of the materials on record, including the affidavit filed by the victim, it emerges that the relationship between the victim and the accused/appellant was consensual in nature. At the same time, the medical evidence (PW-2) does not indicate any signs of forceful sexual intercourse or physical injury. 17] On a cumulative reading of the materials on record, including the affidavit filed by the victim, it emerges that the relationship between the victim and the accused/appellant was consensual in nature. It is not in dispute that both the victim and the accused/appellant were adults at the time of the alleged occurrence. There is no material to indicate that the consent, if any, was vitiated by force, coercion, misconception of fact, or any circumstance recognised in law so as to attract the ingredients of the offence alleged under the IPC. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. 18] It is noteworthy that this Court, on 31.03.2026, upon taking note of the stand of the victim in the affidavit and being prima facie satisfied that the accused/appellant may be innocent, was pleased to release him on bail. Further, considering that the medical report suggested that the victim was pregnant at the time of medical examination, this Court directed her to appear in person at the time of hearing of the appeal to clarify the contents of her affidavit dated 23.05.2025 and to state whether any child had been born. 19] Today, when the matter was taken up, the victim (Smti. Padmawati Ngate) as well as the accused/appellant (Shri Bhaijan Morang) were present in person. Upon being questioned regarding his age, the accused/appellant stated that he is 33 years old, which implies that he was not a juvenile at the time of the incident in 2017. The victim, upon being asked whether any child was born pursuant to the alleged pregnancy, stated that she was not pregnant at the time of her medical examination. 20] In the present case, the version of the prosecutrix has undergone substantial variations at different stages namely in the FIR, her deposition during trial, the affidavit filed before this court, and her statement made during her interaction today. Such inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution case and render it unsafe to place implicit reliance on her testimony without independent corroboration. 21] This court, therefore considered it appropriate to interact with the victim in camera. Such inconsistencies go to the root of the prosecution case and render it unsafe to place implicit reliance on her testimony without independent corroboration. 21] This court, therefore considered it appropriate to interact with the victim in camera. During such interaction, the victim in the presence of her counsel, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the appellant, unequivocally stated that the accused/appellant had not committed any sexual assault upon her and that the FIR was lodged due to a dispute between her family and the accused/appellant. She further clarified that there was neither any sexual relationship nor any incident of rape and that she was not pregnant at the time of the alleged medical examination. It further emerged that she was already married and had a child aged 17 years at the time of the occurrence. 22] The statement made by the victim before this court, coupled with the absence of medical evidence supporting the allegation of force and the inconsistencies in her earlier versions, creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. In criminal jurisprudence, such doubt must necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused. 23] Insofar as the contention regarding the accused/appellant being a juvenile at the time of the incident is concerned, the same stands negated by his own statement before this Court regarding his age, which indicates that he was not a juvenile in the year 2017. However, this aspect does not materially affect the core issue relating to the commission of the alleged offence. 24] In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded by the trial court, being based solely on a testimony that is inconsistent and unreliable, cannot be sustained in law. 25] We are, therefore, of the unhesitant view that the impugned conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim are wholly unsustainable. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, Assam in Sessions Case No. 88/2017 are hereby set aside and quashed. 26] The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 27] Resultantly, the accused/appellant is acquitted of all charges levelled against him. 28] The bail bonds furnished by the accused/appellant stand discharged. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji, Assam in Sessions Case No. 88/2017 are hereby set aside and quashed. 26] The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 27] Resultantly, the accused/appellant is acquitted of all charges levelled against him. 28] The bail bonds furnished by the accused/appellant stand discharged. 29] The act of respondent No. 2 in lodging a false criminal case against the accused/appellant, thereby jeopardising his life for no fault of his own, renders her open to the charge/ offence of perjury. However, considering her background and the fact that she is married with a 17-year-old child, we refrain from directing prosecution for perjury. 30] Return the TCR.