ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.:–Sole appellant Sintu Kumar who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC vide judgment dated 14.12.2010 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years as well as also fined Rs.10,000/- in default thereof to undergo R.I. for one year vide order dated 20.12.2010 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Barh, Patna in Sessions Trial No.125 of 2007 has challenged the aforesaid finding under instant appeal.

2. Ranju Devi (PW-7), mother of victim Neha Kumari aged about 3 years had given her fardbeyan on 17.10.2006 disclosing therein that Sintu Kumar has visiting terms as well as was occasionally offering toffee and other article to children being her neighbour. On previous day i.e. on 16.10.2006 Sintu Kumar came and took away Raju, her nephew aged about 4 years and her daughter Neha. After sometime came with aforesaid two children and disclosed that he had offered chocolate. Again at about 05:00 P.M. he took away her daughter Neha from near her house. Seeing absence of her daughter she began to search and during course thereof, she found her daughter in a room locked from outside at the “Gohal” (cowshed) of Tanik Sao. With the help of villagers she was taken out. Her pant and vest was found soaked with blood.

3. On the basis thereof, Mokama P.S. Case No.169 of 2006 was registered; whereupon investigation was taken up. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, appellant was put on trial which culminated ultimately in his conviction and sentence, the subject matter of instant appeal.

4. The defence, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of occurrence. However, neither any DW nor any Exhibit has been adduced on his behalf.

5. From the lower court record it transpires that altogether twelve PWs have been examined out of whom PW-1 is Angad Tiwari, PW-2 is Ragani Devi, PW-3 is Munna Singh, PW-4 is Biltu Kumar, PW-5 is Manish Kumar, PW-6 is Chunnu Kumar, PW-7 is Ranju Devi, PW-8 is Hawaldar, Agastu Topo, PW-9 is Debeshwar Pathak, PW-10 is Rajesh Ranjan, PW-11 is Dr. Nilam Sinha, PW-12 is victim Nehal Kumari as well as also examined CW-1, Rabindra Kumar Sinha. Ext.-1 to 1/1 are signature of seizure list witness. Ext.-1 to 2/1 is signature of informant as well as FIR attesting witness, Ext.-2/2 is fardbeyan, Ext.-2/3 endorsement thereupon, PW-3- Formal FIR, Ext.-1/2 Seizure List, Ext.-4- Injury Slip, Ext.-5 FSL report, Ext.-6 Injury report, Ext.-A Apron, Ext.-B- Box, Ext.-C- FSL report, Ext.-D- FSL Work Sheet.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenged the judgment impugned on so many grounds. The first and foremost ground happens to be that none of the witnesses so examined on behalf of prosecution had claimed to have witnessed Neha Kumari, victim in company of appellant and on account thereof, disclosure made by PW-7, informant as well as mother of victim that appellant had taken away Neha Kumari at about 05:00 PM and since thereafter she was found missing happens to be absolutely false. In continuty with the aforesaid event, it has been submitted that virtually none had claimed as an eye witness to suggest that victim was in company of appellant. It has also been submitted that victim was taken out from a room situated at “Gohal” of Tanik Sah, but the same is found uncorroborated on account of non-examination of Tanik Sah. From the fardbeyan as well as evidence of the witnesses, specific disclosure has been made that the room was locked from outside and the room was opened with the help of villagers. However, the Investigating Officer did not find any sort of mark, broken lock, presence of semen at the spot to justify the allegation that Neha was raped as well as having been confined in a room.

7. The learned counsel also submitted that theory of rape appears to be individual perception without any corroboration and for that referr