JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.10.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Sessions Trial No. 255/2002 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix was residing with her parents at village Ghoghara and she had gone to village Chhapora, where her father was working in the stone mines. They were residing in the house of her grand maternal father namely Sonu Ram. It is alleged that prior to 4 months of lodging of FIR, the parents of the prosecutrix had gone to village Chhapora for earning their livelihood. On the same month, the prosecutrix had gone to the field of her grand maternal for plucking the vegetables then the appellant came there and threatened her to kill with knife, and also gagged her mouth and committed forcefully sexual intercourse with her. Since there was threat to kill she has not informed the incident to anyone and when she returned to village Chhapora with her father then she informed the incident to her mother, who in turn informed to her husband. The father of the prosecutrix due to fear of insult did not disclose the incident to anyone. When her pregnancy was developed then her father informed to her maternal grand father and a meeting was convened in which appellant’s father advised them to accept Rs. 20,000/- and do the abortion. On the basis of report, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered at police Station Bilaigarh and Crime No. 112 of 2002 was registered and after taking usual permission of the prosecutrix for medical examination, she was medically examined and X-ray was taken for ascertain her age.

3. The prosecution investigated the matter and collected the material, thereafter the appellant was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court for commission of offence under Section 376(1) and 506 (B) IPC.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses namely: Prosecutrix (PW-1), Parasram (PW-2), Gokuldas (PW-3), Manaram (PW-4), Dr. N. Bajpai (PW-5), Radheyshyam (PW-6). The prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant has exhibited the documents FIR (Ex.P-1) dated 8.05.2002, complaint (Ex.P-2), consent letter (Ex.P-3), consent letter (Ex.P-4) property seizure (Ex.P-5), Birth and death report form (Ex.P-6A), letter to Civil Surgeon for medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-7A). Opinion of the Doctor dated 10.05.2002 (Ex.P-7), Medical report of the prosecutrix (Ex.P-8), Permission for medical examination of prosecutrix (Ex.P-9), Property seizure memo (Ex.P-10), letter for medical examination of appellant (Ex.P-11), Opinion of Doctor (Ex.P-11), arrest memo (Ex.P-12), receipt of FSL (Ex.P-13), Map (Ex.P-14). Statements of accused/appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in he denied the allegation leveled against him and in question No. 51 he has stated that he has seen prosecutrix having sexual intercourse with two other person namely Prahlad and Ramkumar and he has been falsely implicated to save them. The appellant in his defense has examined three defense witnesses Sonu Ram (DW-1), Sukhram (DW-2) and Bharat Ram (DW-3).

5. The prosecutrix (PW-1) was examined before the Court below, who in her examination-in-chief has deposed that the incident took place in winter, when she had gone to pluck the vegetables on Friday at about 1.00 o’clock the present appellant had suddenly come there and catch hold of her. When she made an attempt to rescue herself he has