Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

(1) Appellant Farsuram stands convicted u/s 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence of R.I. for 3 months, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur on 28th of November, 2005 in Sessions Trial No. 121/2005. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Prosecutrix (PW-1) was a married lady aged about 20 years. On 2.2.2005 at about 3.00 p.m., when she was returning from village Dongriguda to village Saatgaon, appellant Farsuram met her on the way near village Satli. The allegations are that he put her in fear and took her to a nearby field and committed sexual intercourse against her. The case of the prosecution is that after the intercourse, the prosecutrix ran away to one Pankuram, who was working in a nearby field, and narrated the story to him. Thereafter she narrated the story to her husband Jungaram (PW-2) and then, a First Information Report (Ex.-P/4) was lodged by the prosecutrix in the concerned police station at about 22.00 hours on 7.2.2005.

(3) The learned Sessions Judge recorded the conviction of the appellant on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix holding that she was subjected to forcible intercourse by the appellant.

(4) Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the version of the prosecutrix cannot inspire the confidence of the Court as a possibility of her being a consenting party cannot be fully ruled out in this case. He also argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and no reasonable explanation has been offered for the same. He further argued that the main supporting witness of the prosecution would have been Pankuram but he has not been examined at the trial.

(5) On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.

(6) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case.

(7) The prosecutrix, PW-1, deposed that she was going on the road, when Farsuram came from the back side and caught her saree and thereafter took her to a nearby field and got her to lie on the ground. Thereafter he showed her a knife and committed sexual intercourse for 2-3 times. After the sexual intercourse, she went to a person who was working in a nearby field. He was Pankuram. She narrated the story to him. Some persons chased the appellant but he ran away in the forest. Then she went to her house and narrated the story to her husband Jungaram (PW-2). They were searching Farsuram for a week and thereafter a report was lodged in police station, Kondagaon. In the cross examination, she deposed that earlier she was not knowing the accused. Her husband told that the boy who committed intercourse against her was Farsu. However, her husband had not seen the accused committing sexual intercourse against her. In fact, her husband made an inquiry and thereafter a report was lodged against the accused. She categorically admitted vide Para-6 of her cross-examination that she had not told the name of the appellant/accused to anybody prior to lodging of the F.I.R. She further admitted that her husband and father-in-law had gone to the police station to lodge the report and they had also taken accused Farsu to the police station. About the delay, she deposed that since they were inquiring and searching the accused, therefore, the time was consumed and there was delay in lodging the report. She further deposed that one person was working in a nearby field and two other persons were grazing their cattle and they had chased the accused. She very categorically admitted in Para-12 of her cross-examination that the appellant/accused committed sexual intercourse for 3 times which has consumed about half an hour and during the said consecutive sexual inter