1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 45/2011 which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offences punishable under section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. Original record is perused.

2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows. The complainant Dadasaheb Dukare is the father of the prosecutrix. The accused and complainant are residents of village Satral Tq. Rahuri District Ahmednagar. The house of the accused is situated at the distance of around 250 feet from the house of the complainant. At the relevant time, the accused was aged about 40 years and the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years. The prosecutrix is described as simpleton, little bit mentally retarded but she was studying in 6th standard in a School from Satral.

3. The incident took place on 29/11/2010. The prosecutrix left for the School at about 10.30 a.m. She returned to home at 5.00 p.m. and then she informed to the complainant and her mother that at 3.00 p.m. which was recess time of the School, the accused had come to her School and he had collected her from the School after taking permission of the Headmistress of the School. She informed that the accused had informed the School that the grand mother of the prosecutrix was sick. The prosecutrix further disclosed that the accused then took her on his motor cycle to the field of one Chormunge and then in sugar cane crop, he committed rape on her. She disclosed that the accused had given threat of life to her and he had warned not to disclose the incident to anybody.

4. A cousin brother of complainant had died recently and so the complainant was observing religious restraint (Sutak). Due to this circumstance, the complainant did not approach police immediately. On 30/11/2010, Yogesh Chormunge and Arun Dukare of the village of complainant approached him and informed that they had seen the accused taking the prosecutrix to the sugar cane crop of Chormunge. They also informed that when they had made inquiry with the accused, the accused had avoided to give reply to them. Even after receiving such information, the complainant did not approach police due to the religious restraint which he was observing. He went to the Police station and gave report on 03/12/2010. Crime No. 362/2010 came to be registered in Rahuri Police Station for aforesaid offences.

5. On 03/12/2010 the Police referred prosecutrix for medical examination to rural hospital, Rahuri. The Doctor found that there was recent tear of hymen. On the same day, the complainant produced clothes of prosecutrix which she had on her person on the day of the incident. The complainant showed spot of the offence to the police. The panchanama of this incident came to be prepared. During the course of investigation, statements of some witnesses came to be recorded. The Police collected record from the School with regard to the age of prosecutrix and with regard to the incident of collecting prosecutrix by accused from the School on 29/11/2010. Age of the prosecutrix was determined on the basis of radiological examination. The Doctor gave opinion that the age of prosecutrix was between 14 and 16 years. The accused came to be arrested and he came to be medically examined. The police forwarded the clothes of the prosecutrix, the underwear of the accused etc. to Chemical Analyser’s office along with the blood samples. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences.

6. In the trial Court, the prosecution has examined the complainant, the prosecutrix, two Doctors who had examined the prosecutrix, two staff members of the School, panch witness and two police officers. The trial Court has believed all these witnesses. The accused took defence of total denial. He contended that due to some property dispute, he is falsely impli