A. M. BADAR, J.:–By this appeal, the appellant/convicted accused is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamui, in Sessions Case No.233 of 2015, thereby convicting him of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(1) (xi) and 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, sentence of six months. For the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. For the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant/convicted accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. For the sake of convenience, the appellant/convicted accused shall be referred to in his original capacity as “an accused”.

2. The facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:—

(a) The prosecutrix is a woman residing in village- Narganjo in District-Jamui. The incident allegedly took place on 09.04.2015. In the morning of that day, the prosecutrix (P.W.4) had been to the brick kiln of the accused for doing the labour work. At the end of the day, she demanded her wages but the accused told her that he will pay the same subsequently. In the evening hours, when the prosecutrix was cooking food, the accused came to her house, dragged her in a room of her house and by closing the door of that room, he committed rape on her. The prosecutrix shouted and therefore the villagers gathered. The accused was taken in custody by them and he was tied up to a tree. Subsequently, the relatives of the accused freed him and took him with them. The prosecutrix then lodged the report of the incident on the next day, i.e., 10.04.2015 with the Mahila Police Station which has resulted in registration of the Crime No.57 of 2015 against the accused.

(b) The routine investigation followed and ultimately the accused came to be chargesheeted.

(c) The learned trial court had framed and explained the charge to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(d) In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses. P.W.1 Munni Marandi and P.W.2 Pramila Hembram turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.3 Karu Prasad is father-in-law of the prosecutrix, who has been examined as P.W.4. P.W.5 Dr. Veena Singh had examined the prosecutrix. P.W.6 Raj Ranjani Kumari is the Investigating Officer and P.W.7 Devraj was the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(e) The defence of the accused was that of total denial.

(f) Upon hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the accused and to sentence him as indicated in the opening paragraphs of this Judgment.

3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused at sufficient length of time. He argued that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, then also, it is seen that it is of the consensual sex between two adult persons. It is argued that evidence of the Medical Officer, who has examined the prosecutrix, is not supporting the case of the prosecution. There were no injuries on the person of the prosecutix. Evidence on record does not show that the prosecutrix has offered resistance to the act of the accused. As aga