JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 18th January 2017 and order of sentence dated 20th January 2017 passed by Shri Durgesh Mani Tripathi, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran, in Sessions Case No. 294/15 (Computer Registration No. 1816/16), arising out of Bagaha Mahila P.S. Case No. 42 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C) and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. The substance of the prosecution’s case appearing from the Fardbeyan of informant on which basis the FIR of the instant matter was lodged, is as follows:-

As per the prosecution’s story, on the alleged date and time of occurrence the informant went to attend call of nature in the Sugarcane field of one namely, Hira Lal and then the accused/appellant over-powered her and committed rape on her by tying towel on her mouth and when the informant started weeping then the accused assaulted her with a bat of Hasiya and also tore her clothes (Nighty) and after the alleged occurrence informant returned to her house and narrated the alleged occurrence to her family members.

3. After the completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 376 and 504 of I.P.C. and the learned C.J.M took cognizance of the alleged offences mentioned in the charge-sheet against the appellant.

4. After the cognizance, the appellant’s case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376 and 504 of I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried showing his innocence and denied the charges and allegations made against him.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses along with the victim which are as follows:-

PW-1:- XXXX, (Mother of the Victim)

PW-2:- Hari Chaudhary (Independent witness)

PW-3:- XXXX, (Informant/ victim)

PW-4:- Shubh Narain Yadav, (Investigating Officer)

PW-5:- XXXX, (Brother of the victim)

PW-6:- Dr. Akansha (Medical Officer)

PW-7:- Sumitra Devi (Independent Witness)

PW-8:- Rubi Devi (Independent Witness)

PW-9:- XXXX (Father of the victim)

PW-10:-Dhura Chaudhary (Independent witness)

6. Apart from the oral evidence the prosecution submitted certain documents as documentary evidence and got them marked as Exhibits in the following order:-

Exhibit-1:- Formal F.I.R.

Exhibit-2:-Written Report.

Exhibit-3:- Seizure of clothes of victim.

Exhibit-4:- Seizure of clothes of accused.

Exhibit-5:- Injury report of accused.

Exhibit-6:- Forwarding of I.O. for chemical examination.

Exhibit-7:- Injury Report of victim.

7. After the completion of the prosecution’s evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded by the Trial Court and the circumstances appearing against him from the prosecution’s evidences were explained to him but the appellant denied the said circumstances and claimed himself to be innocent.

8. In the defence, the appellant produced two defence witnesses DW-1 Mahesh Yadav and DW-2 Adhar Yadav. After conclusion of the trial the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned-above.

9. The Learned counsel Mr. P. N. Mishra, appearing for the appellant has argued that the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-3) given before the Trial Court is full of contradictions and discrepancies on material points which create a serious doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s story and the allegation of rape made by the prosecutrix was not supported by the father and mother of the victim (PW-9 and 1 respectively) and other private witnesses other than the informant are hearsay witnesses and their evidences are not corroborative to the allegation made by the prosecutrix in her