1. The appellant-accused is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 09.10.2013 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Case 136/2012, by and under which, the appellant-accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.

2. Heard Shri Amit Band, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V.P. Maldhure, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The genesis of the prosecution lies in the oral report dated 17.07.2012 lodged by the prosecutrix (P.W.1) at Police Station Parwa, District Yavatmal. The gist of the report lodged by the prosecutrix, who was then aged 15 years, is that between 05:30 to 06:00 p.m. on the day of the incident she went to the grocery shop of one Rajesh Dabbawar to purchase cell for watch. The wife of the shop owner Smt. Kalpana informed the prosecutrix that watch cells were not available in the shop. The prosecutrix was returning to her residence uttering that the cells are not available and from which shop could she purchase the cell. The accused, who was sitting in front of his house heard the uttering of the prosecutrix and told her that the prosecutrix is free to collect the cell from his residence. The prosecutrix approached the residence of the accused, she was pushed inside the house, the accused removed her clothes and gagged her when she attempted to raise an alarm. The accused threatened the prosecutrix with physical harm, made her lie on the cot, undressed and slept over the person of the prosecutrix and inserted his male organ in the vagina. After she was subjected to sexual intercourse the prosecutrix wore her clothes, and when the accused opened the door of the house, she started running towards her house. The accused followed her and obstructed her from proceeding towards the house. The prosecutrix turned back and ran towards the agricultural field of Avinash Vithalkar. She met Akshay Meshram, who held her since while running the jaws of the prosecutrix was locked. Akshay Meshram took the prosecutrix near the canal and offered her water. Akshay Meshram, Mangesh Madavi and Sanjay Meshram escorted the prosecutrix to her house. She disclosed the incident to her parents and lodged the report.

4. The prosecutrix was referred to Civil Hospital, Yavatmal for medical examination, during the investigation spot panchnama was recorded one wakal (mattress) was seized from the residence of the accused, and upon completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghatanji who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh.11) for offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of IPC. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. The trend and tenor of cross-examination would suggest that the defence is that the prosecutrix and Akshay Meshram were in relationship and used to meet at the residence of the accused. One Sanghpal saw the prosecutrix and Akshay at the residence of the accused and only in order to avoid a scandal the prosecutrix in collusion with Akshay Meshram falsely implicated the accused.

5. The age of the prosecutrix is not in serious dispute. P.W.8 Vilas Chitram the Head Master of Primary School of Kopri Kapsi, in which school the prosecutrix was admitted in the 1st standard, has proved the school record Exh.45 and 46 which record the date of birth as 04.10.1996.

6. P.W.5 Dr. Atul Padmawar Medical Officer has deposed that on clinical examination the age of the prosecutrix was, in his opinion, 15 years.

7. In any event, it is not suggested by the defence that the sexual intercourse, if any, was consensual and the age of the prosecutrix is of scant significance. 8] Before I consider the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W.1,