Swatanter Kumar, CJ.

The Accused Suresh Shankar Jadhav was charged for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as the “Code” and Section 57 of Bombay Children Act, 1948. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 30th November, 1989, found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the charge above referred. The State being aggrieved from the said judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court (IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara) filed an application for leave to appeal which was granted by a Division Bench of this Court on 25th June, 1990. The case came up for regular hearing before another Division Bench of this Court and the Court, vide its Judgment dated 4th May, 2007 upheld the order of the Trial Court acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Code, however, convicted him for an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Code as well as Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act. The Court sentenced the accused under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Court also sentenced the accused under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one months. This judgment of the Court was assailed by the accused in appeal before the Supreme Court where the leave was granted and Criminal Appeal No.1454 of 2007 was heard and the same was disposed of by passing the following order:

“The Appeal abovementioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 22nd day of October, 2007, Upon perusing the record and hearing counsel for the parties herein, This Court, inter alia, pass the following order:

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

“Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are inclined to remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision, but we also make it clear that the appellant before us shall be given a specific date by the High Court on which date he shall appear so that the matter can be taken up and disposed of. The impugned judgment is thus set aside on the aforesaid ground alone and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Since the appellant has surrendered on 5th July, 2007 and there is an order of acquittal in his favour, he shall be set at liberty forthwith and the appeal may proceed before the High Court.”

and this court doth further order that this Order be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned”

2. Resultantly, upon remand, this Appeal has came up for hearing before this Bench. Various contentions have been raised, the merit or otherwise of which can be examined by this Court but before that, reference to the facts of case of prosecution would be necessary.

3. The case of the prosecution reflect that the victim, lodged a complaint with Vaduj Police Station on 11th August, 1987 stating that a person from her village by name Suresh Shankar Jadhav had committed rape on her at 1.30 p.m. Thereafter, First Information Report was recorded. This complaint came to be registered as Crime No.78 of 1987 under Section 376 of the Code and Entry No.18 was made in the Station Diary. The victim was examined during the trial as P.W.7 where she stated the facts which are quite in line with the complaint lodged by her. The prosecutrix was studying in 7th standard. Her father is a Tailor, brother Mahesh is a Painter and elder sister Manjusha was doing household work. According to her, on 11th August, 1987, she along with her brother and sister was going to Balubai Devi of Umbarda. She was going on cycle with her brother. They all met in the temple Balubai. They were returning while walking upto Umbarda, when Suresh Shankar Patil was comin