JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.2.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in ST No.11/2014 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 376 (1) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional RI for 1 month.

2. The prosecution case is that on 18th October, 2014, the prosecutrix (PW- 11), aged about 14 years, was residing along with two small children in the house of her maternal uncle Churaman Verma (PW-1) at village Salhewara, PS Gatapar. The appellant, who is known to the family, came to the house and asked about her maternal uncle. When she informed that all of them had gone to the field for cutting Soyabeen crop, the appellant took the prosecutrix to the forest behind her house and when she cried, the appellant stuffed her mouth with a piece of cloth and committed rape. When Churaman Verma (PW-1) returned from the field in the evening, he found that the victim was sleeping and when they tried to wake her up, she did not respond and also blood was coming from her private part. They thought that due to menstrual cycle such bleeding was occurring. After 2 days of the incident, when the victim returned from the hospital, she narrated the incident to Churaman Verma, her maternal uncle. The maternal uncle consulted with the father and mother of the victim and thereafter on 24th October, 2014, a written complaint (Ex.-P/9) was lodged by the prosecutrix and on that basis FIR No.46/2014 (Ex.-P/10) was registered.

3. The prosecutrix was medically examined vide Ex.-P/7. Sub Inspector Jitendra Kosle, IO, prepared the spot map (Ex.-P/6) and seized Kotwari Register in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 7.7.99 (Ex.-P/5) and birth certificate (Ex.-P/4) was also seized vide Ex.- P/3. (PW-6) Chhedilal Jangde, Patwari, has prepared the map (Ex.-P/1). Statements of witnesses were recorded. The prosecutrix’s underwear and slides prepared during examination was seized vide Ex.- P/11 and the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. On such examination, the stains of semen was not found on the underwear of the appellant as also on the slides. The appellant was also examined and he was also found capable to perform sexual intercourse. The appellant was arrested on 25th October, 2014.

4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which the appellant has stated that he has enmity with the maternal uncle of the victim Churaman Verma (PW-1), therefore, he has been falsely implicated. He has examined one Baldu (DW-1) in his defence.

5. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was registered with an inordinate delay of 6 days and the appellant was falsely implicated due to previous enmity which existed between the maternal uncle of the prosecutrix and the appellant. The prosecution case is not supported by the medical examination of the prosecutrix, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. Learned counsel prays to allow the Appeal and set aside the conviction.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment and would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and the present Appeal has no substance and the same deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

9. The prosecutrix (PW-11) deposed that on the date of incident at 12 noon, she along with two sons and a daughter of her maternal uncle were present in the house. At that time the appellant came to the