JUDGMENT

V.M. Deshpande, J. - Challenge in the present appeal is set up to the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, dated 29.3.2005 in Sessions Case No.70 of 1996, by which the appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The prosecution case is in narrow compass and that can be narrated herein under :

A] The criminal law was set into operation by the victim (PW1) by lodging her oral report with Police Station, Chamorshi on 05.2.1996. As per the oral report, the day of the incident was Monday and at about 6.00 O''clock in the evening, she was present in her agricultural field and was collecting vegetables. After collecting the same, when she was proceeding towards her house, at that time the accused came inside her field and without uttering anything caught hold her, removed her clothes, pressed her neck and mouth, thereafter removed his own clothes and put his private part inside the private part of the victim. Though, the victim was trying to raise voice, she was obstructed. After some time, her husband came in the field, gave water to her and on his enquiry, she disclosed what happened to her. Thereafter, her husband brought the bullockcart and came to the police station for lodging the report. The oral report of the victim is at Exh.14. On the basis of the oral report, an offence was registered vide Crime No. 8/1996 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed first information report is at Exh.15.

B] When PSI Nanaji Bhoyar (PW7) was handed over with the investigation of Crime No. 8/1996, the victim was already sent for her medical examination. The Investigating Officer visited the spot of incident and in presence of panhas, panchanama of the spot was drawn. Exh.21 is the panchanama of spot of occurrence. He also seized the clothes of the victim under seizure memo (Exh.16). Statement of the victim was recorded on the next date i.e. 06.2.1996.

Clothes of the accused were seized from his house under seizure memo (Exh.22). On 07.2.1996, the accused produced the order of anticipatory bail. On 08.2.1996, the accused was sent for his medical examination. His samples of semen, pubic hair and blood were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.19). On 09.2.1996, the appellant produced his nicker and the said was seized under seizure memo (Exh.23). After completion of the investigation, PSI Nanaji Bhoyar (PW7) filed chargesheet in the Court of law.

C] The learned Magistrate, in whose Court the chargesheet was presented, found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Therefore, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli framed the Charge (Exh.6) in Sessions Case No. 70/1996 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and claimed for his trial.

D] In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/ accused, the prosecution has examined in all Seven witnesses and also relied upon various documents. After appreciation of the prosecution case and after considering the defence which was of total denial, the learned Judge of the Court below passed the impugned judgment of conviction. Hence, this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. V. N. Morande, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the record and proceedings.

4. The primary submission of Mr. Morande, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is falsely implicated in the case. It is his submission that possibility of hus