N. ANANDA, J.—The appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused) was tried and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 341 I.P.C. Therefore, he has filed this appeal.

2. I have heard Sri S.K. Venkata Reddy-learned Counsel for appellant-accused and Sri Vijaykumar Majage-learned Government Pleader for the State.

3. The inter se relationship of some of the prosecution witnesses and the case of prosecution may be stated thus:

P.W. 1-Anitha Bai is the daughter of P.W. 7-Sevya Nayaka and P.W. 8-Shalibai. P.Ws. 3 to 6 are related to P.W. 1 and accused. The accused is the cousin brother of P.W. 1. The father of P.W. 1 and the father of accused are direct brothers. At the relevant time, they were residents of Jajurayanahalli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District.

4. It is the case of prosecution that during the year 1995, P.W. 1 was aged about 12 years and she was grazing the sheep. On 29.12.1995, P.W. 1 and accused, P.W. 4-Lalu Naik and one Gopi were grazing their sheep in a land near Jajurayanahalli. At about 2.30-3.00 p.m., Gopi s/o Gyananaika, P.W. 4-Lalu Naik s/o Kunte Ramanna returned to village to take food. At that time, P.W. 1 and accused were grazing their sheep near a place called Govinakatte. The accused took P.W. 1 on the pretext of plucking and getting her tamarind fruits. The accused climbed tamarind tree and plucked tamarind fruits and gave them to P.W. 1. The accused suddenly felled P.W. 1 and committed rape on P.W. 1 despite protests by P.W. 1. P.W. 1 somehow managed to escape from the clutches of accused and proceeded towards her village. On the way, she met one Pujari Naik and Lalu Naik and informed them about the incident. They questioned the accused, the accused did not express regrets for what he had done, on the other hand he told that he would not leave any woman except his own sister. P.W. 1 reached the house, her father P.W. 7-Sevya Nayaka and mother P.W. 8-Shalibai were not in the house and she informed the matter to some of the elders of village.

5. On the following day, i.e., on 30.12.1995 at about 4.30 p.m., first information was got written by some person and the same was lodged with the jurisdictional police station (Pavagada Police Station), on the basis of which crime was registered against the accused. P.W. 1 was sent for medical examination and she was examined by P.W. 10-Lakshmi Rajyam who noticed the following:

The general condition of the patient was normal. Pulse is also normal. No external injuries over the face, breast and thighs and external geniteria. On P.V. examination (for vaginal examination admit one finger). Lower part of the hymen is torn and reddish. Service normal and pubic hair, vaginal swabs and smears collected and sent for chemical examiner’s report. Clothes are also preserved and sent for chemical examiner’s report.

6. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and recorded statements of witnesses and submitted charge sheet against accused for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 376 I.P.C.

7. During trial, P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and documents as per Exs. P1 to P10 were marked and Material Object, viz., tamarind fruits and dried flowers were collectively marked as M.O. 1.

8. The defence of accused was one of total denial.

9. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties, held the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 341 I.P.C. Therefore, accused is before this Court.

10. In this appeal following points would arise for determination:

(1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 29.12.1995 at about 4.00 p.m., when P.W. 1 was grazing sheep near a place called Govinakatte of Jajurayanahalli village, accused induced P.W. 1 to pluck tamarind fruits and thereby accused took her near Halla and fell on her on the ground and committed rape on her against her will, thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C.?

(2) Whether the learned Trial Judge has properly app