BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. - (1.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant/petitioner that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 7 years for committing offence under Sections 376/342 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the prosecution case that the de facto complainant/victim while returning to her matrimonial home was restrained by the accused on the road and then the accused took her to a room and forcibly committed rape upon her. The petitioner also confined her in the said room by locking the door of the room from outside. The victim raised hue and cry which attracted local people including P.W.4. They broke open the padlock and rescued the lady.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the victim is a married lady of about 25 years. Immediately on the next date of occurrence she was medically examined but the Doctor did not find any injury in her private parts. One Noor Ali who allegedly rescued and recovered the victim did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Thirdly, the appellant was all along on bail and therefore, he should be released on bail.
(3.) I have carefully perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge accepted the evidence of the de facto complainant/victim as trustworthy and unblemished. It is needless to say that the evidence of the prosecutrix could be the sole basis of conviction in a case of rape. The victim was a married lady. She was sexually habituated. Therefore, there may not be any injury in the private part of the victim.;