JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellant herein was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 182/89 for offences punishable under Section 366A and 376 of the IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on each of those counts but the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court of Patna has confirmed the said sentence. It is against that judgment and conviction the appellant is before us in this Criminal Appeal.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was giving tuition to the prosecutrix Geeta Kumari and her sister at their residence. It is stated that on 30th April, 1989 at about 7 PM that appellant came to their house and in the presence of the family members told Geeta Kumari PW 1 that he won t be giving tuition on that day and went away. Immediately, thereafter, it is stated that PW 1 left the house telling the members of the family that she was going to grand-father s house to watch television. It is further stated that on the way she was met by the appellant and he on the pretext of taking her to a movie took her in his motor cycle towards Muzaffarpur. From Muzaffarpur, he took her in a tr