1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt.26.7.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No.348 of 1997 by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby the appellant/accused was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was also found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. However, the accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”).

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:

Prosecutrix Vandana, aged about 14 years, on 3.2.1997, had gone to the agricultural field situated at village Nisatkheda along with her mother and other women from her village for doing labour work. At that time, the prosecutrix was resident of village Susdoh. On the day of incident i.e. on 3.2.1997, at about 10.00 a.m., the prosecutrix was called by the accused for doing labour work in his agricultural field and accordingly, she reached there. While the prosecutrix was busy doing labour work at the small bund erected for the purpose of cultivation of paddy crop, the appellant/accused caught hold of her, brought her down on the ground, gagged her mouth by pressing her hand and removing her underwear, he performed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that, in the said process, the bangles of the prosecutrix were broken and she had also sustained abrasions on her back portion. After performing rape, the accused threatened her not to disclose the fact to her mother or otherwise he would kill her. The prosecutrix went back weeping to her mother and other agricultural labourers who were present there namely Kankibai, Parvatibai, Sakhubai and Ramolabai who were busy doing labour work in other field. Kankibai Netam (PW6) advised the prosecutrix to lodge report at the Police Station, Ramtek which was about 20 kms. away from Nisatkheda. Accordingly, report was lodged at the Police Station as per Exh.38. The prosecutrix was referred to the Rural hospital, Ramtek to undergo medical examination on the day of incident. The appellant/accused was arrested on the same day at about night time. He was also medically examined on the following day. During the course of investigation, the police drew spot panchanama as also seized the clothes of the alleged victim as well as the accused and the seized articles were referred to the Chemical Analyser for examination and furnishing report. After completion of investigation, the accused was charge sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramtek and the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court, Nagpur.

3. Thus, the accused was charged for the alleged offences punishable under Sessions 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Atrocities Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution had examined nine witnesses in support of the prosecution case and closed its evidence. While the accused had also examined one witness his wife namely Chhayabai (DW1).

4. In the trial Court, it appears that the prosecution had listed documentary evidence as per Exh.11. Sixteen documents were listed, out of which the documents at Serial Nos.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 were admitted including medical examination papers in respect of the victim. From the evidence led before the Court, the defence did not seriously dispute presence of accused and Vandana in the agricultural field at the relevant time as also the spot of occu