A.R. Joshi, J.

1. Heard rival arguments on this appeal which is taken up for final hearing as the application for bail during the pendency of the appeal was rejected by this Court when the appeal was admitted.

2. Present appellant was convicted for offence under sections 363, 365 and 376 of IPC. For the first two counts, he was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. For the third count, he was sentenced to suffer RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 147 of 2009 passed on 17th December, 2012, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, can be mentioned in order to have proper perspective of the matter and to decide the appeal in the light of the evidence brought before the trial Court as under:

4. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix, then aged about 17/18 years and who was a college going girl, was taken from her college premises by the present appellant and his other 2/3 friends. She was taken in a Qualis vehicle in the afternoon of 3/7/2009 and was taken to Sawantwadi at the native place of the present appellant where she was compelled to stay in an isolated room away from the main house and on the night there was sexual assault and forcible sexual intercourse on her without her consent and against her will. On the next day, the prosecutrix pretended to go for easing herself and that time she got the opportunity to flee away from the place and could manage to catch one ST bus and could reach Sawantwadi Railway Station. At the railway station the prosecutrix initially thought of returning back to Mumbai where she was staying and from where she was taken by the appellant. However, after knowing that the train for going to Mumbai was late on that evening she thought it fit to inform the incident occurred with her to one lady constable, then present at the platform. She narrated the incident to the said lady police constable. Thereafter, the constable took prosecutrix to the police station and necessary information and messages were passed on to Malad, Mumbai where by that time Malad police were already seized of the complaint lodged by the father of the victim regarding missing of his daughter. It is also the case of the prosecution that the present appellant then happened to be at the Sawantwadi Railway Station platform in search of the prosecutrix and he was identified by the police and was apprehended. The prosecutrix and the appellant were brought to Mumbai by Malad Police party, accompanied by the complainant, father of the prosecutrix who had reached Sawantwadi on receiving the information.

5. It is also the case of the prosecution that prior to coming to Mumbai the spot panchnama was conducted regarding the incident of forcible sexual intercourse, as disclosed by the prosecutrix and during the said panchnama the blood stained bed-sheets were seized.

6. The investigation was carried out by Malad Police Station and on completion of investigation and after obtaining reports of CA and after getting the prosecutrix and the present appellant medically examined and on obtaining their medical certificates, a charge-sheet was filed and the relevant charges were framed. At this juncture, it must be mentioned that the charge was framed by the Assistant Sessions Judge on 19th March, 2010. Thereafter, the matter was started for recording of evidence. Though the evidence of PW 1 was over on 23rd August, 2010 recorded by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, subsequently the examination-in-chief of PW 2, prosecutrix was recorded by 3rd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai on 26th September, 2011. But, thereafter, cross-examination of PW 2 and evidence of other witnesses was recorded by Additional Sessions Judge. These details are mentioned regarding intermittent recording of evidence of PW 2