The main legal point established is that in cases of rape, the testimony of the prosecutrix should inspire confidence to the court, and in the absence of corroboration, contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses may lead to the acquittal of the accused.

Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State alongwith the counsel for the complainant (prosecutrix) and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 14-12-2001 and sentence order dated 16-02-2001 passed by learned Additional Session Judge-Vth. Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 303 of 2000 by which and whereunder. he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under the aforesaid offence and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/upon the appellant and in default of payment of the fine, the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that PW 2 Raj Kunwar Devi filed complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 226 of 1999 against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Rohtas at Sasaram stating therein that on 16-10-1999 at about 3.00 p.m. while she was alone in her house and her husband had gone to village Karwandia whereas; her children were also not present in the house the appellant came at her house and started searching her husband. She disclosed that her husband had gone to Karwandia but the appellant entered her house and caught her hand. She tried to raise alarm but the appellant gagged her mouth and threw her on the ground. The appellant took out a pistol and threatened to kill her and out of fear, she kept mum. The appellant closed the door of the house from inside and started removing her Sari. She made protest but the appellant again threatened her saying that he would kill her husband and children. The appellant committed rape upon her and left her home giving threatening to her. She further stated in her complaint petition that on 18-10-1999 at about 8.00 p.m. while she had gone near Panchayat Bhawan to attend the call of nature, the appellant again caught her and took her in Panchayat Bhawan where he committed rape upon her. She did not disclose the above incidents to any person out of fear and when on 20-10-1999. her husband returned home from Karwandia, she disclosed the aforesaid incidents to her husband. Her husband made inquiry from the appellant about the aforesaid incidents but the appellant abused him and also threatened her husband and. thereafter, she alongwith her husband went to police station but her case was not registered and lastly, she filed the aforesaid complaint case.

4. After inquiry, prima facie case was found against the appellant and after ascertaining the appearance of appellant, the case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions as Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

5. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In course of trial, only two prosecution witnesses were examined. The statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which, he reiterated his innocence and claimed his false implication. No evidence was adduced by the appellant in support of his defence.

7. The learned trial Court, having relied upon the testimony of prosecutrix as well as her husband, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in the manner as stated above.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that according to complaint case itself, the alleged occurrence took place on two dates, i.e. 16-10-1999 and 18-10-1999 and the complaint petition was filed on 26-10-1999. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no sufficient explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint petition. It is further contended by him that' the prosecutrix as well as her husband made