The evidence of the prosecutrix in sexual offence cases requires no corroboration if found to be worthy of credence and reliable. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence and there is an absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity.

1. The appellant seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 05-5-2004, delivered by the IIIrd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial 80/1997, by and under which the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, five years and seven years respectively for the aforesaid offences in addition to payment of fine of Rs.500/- for each offence.

2. The accused faced trial along with Anarsingh Jagan More, Bhumsingh Chhotu Masniya and Mansingh Shekdya Waskalya. Anarsingh More absconded and at the instance of the other accused, the trial was separated. The other two accused Bhumsingh and Mansingh are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The record reveals that the learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused has not collected the paper-book. The learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused is absent when the appeal is called out for hearing. Since the learned Counsel has not even collected the paper-book, it is obvious that this Court is not likely to have the benefit of the assistance of the learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused. Consistent with the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case in Bani Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720, I intend to decide the appeal on merits.

4. I have carefully scrutinized the original record of the proceeding, with the able and fair assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade.

5. The first information report is lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 11-1-1996 at 12-10 hours. The oral report is at Exhibit 31 and the printed first information report is at Exhibit 32.

6. The oral report Exhibit 31 states that on 10-1-1996 P.W.1 accompanied by his daughter (prosecutrix) and a relative Dhawalsingh (P.W.10) had gone to the field situated in jungle to cut grass. The grass was loaded in the bullock cart and while P.W.1, the prosecutrix (P.W.2) and P.W.10 were returning to the village, at 3’O clock in the afternoon, the accused forcibly took the prosecutrix to jungle. P.W.1 resisted, he was assaulted by the accused on the left leg with a wooden stick and suffered injuries. P.W.1 was assaulted on the ear with an axe by accused Bhumsingh. The daughter of P.W.1 sought the help of Dhawalsingh with the result that even Dhawalsingh (P.W.10) was assaulted by the accused. The accused physically assaulted the prosecutrix and kidnapped her. P.W.1 further states in the report that the accused wished to forcibly solemnized the marriage of the prosecutrix. On the basis of the said report, offence punishable under Sections 323, 363, 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were registered vide Crime No.6/1996 at the police station Dharni, District Amravati.

7. The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix rescued herself from the clutches of the accused and returned to her house at 400 p.m. or thereabout on 11-1-1996. The prosecutrix disclosed that she was raped by the accused and on the basis of her statement, an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was additionally registered against the accused. The completion of investigation led to submission of the charge sheet in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharni, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exhibit 22. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused, as is evident from the trend and tenor of the cross-examination and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of total denial and false implication.

8. The father of the prosecutrix who is the informant is examined as P.W.1. He has deposed that on the day of the incident, accomp