Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

1. The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. For 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- I.d. to suffer R.I. For 6 months vide Judgment and Order dated 27th August, 1993 by Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 354 of 1882. Hence, this Appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:

"On 9th September, 1991, the prosecutrix lodged a complaint at Khed Police Station alleging therein that she is the permanent resident of village Chandus, Taluka Khed. She is a mother of 3 daughters and 2 sons. Her husband resides at Bombay. She had returned to her village just four days prior to 8/9/1991. One Vilas Roundal is the resident of Chandus village and he resides near her house and he is working at Chakan Motor Garage. On 8/9/1991 at about 9.30 a.m. she had been to Khed for weekly Bazar from Chandus. She learnt that her daughter Vimal was also to come to Khed. She waited at Khed till evening to meet her daughter. However, her daughter did not turn up. She therefore, decided to return to village Chandus by S.T. Bus. She boarded the bus. There were some persons from her village in the said bus and the accused Vilas Roundal was also travelling in the said bus. She was seated near the conductor. She alighted from the bus at Bhagat Phata. The accused had also alighted. When she had reached near the spot called '"Annache Ran", she realised that somebody had caught hold of her from behind and pushed her down. She identified the said person as Vilas Roundal. She requested him to allow her to go home and that she was like his mother and sister. At that time, he initially outraged her modesty. He gave fist blow on her cheek due to which she fell down and thereafter, he had committed sexual intercourse with her. She then rescued herself and reached home and then she narrated entire episode to her son and daughter. On the next day, she approached to the police station and lodged a report. She was referred for medical examination."

2. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 110 of 1991 was registered at Khed Police Station against accused appellant for offence punishable under Section 376, 323, 341.506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on the same day. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 30th October. 1991. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 354 of 1992. The charge was framed against the accused on 30th June, 1993. The accused had pleaded innocence and had denied all the charges levelled against him. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused.

3. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed before the court in consonance with her first information report to some extent. She has deposed before the Court that she was an indoor patient for 4 days. She had sustained injury on her cheek. She had identified the accused in the court. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that she happens to be the maternal aunt of the father of the accused and hence, the accused would be related to her as a grand son. It is pertinent to note that although she has stated in her first information report that the accused was working at Chakan in a Motor Garrage, in the cross-examination, she has feigned ignorance about the service of the accused. It was suggested to her that she has borrowed loan from the accused at the time of marriage of her eldest daughter and therefore, the relations between the accused and the prosecutrix are strained. However, the said suggestion is denied. The prosecutrix has proceeded to state on oath that although they were resident of the same village, they never visited the house of each other. She has denied the suggestion that the relations between parties are strained. It is elicited in the cross-examination that she had alighted at Bhagat