G.S. Sistani, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 24.01.2013 by which the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 376/342/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). By an order of the same date, the appellant stands sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of payment of which, the appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 376 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 342 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 506 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case which was established by the prosecution before the Trial Court was that on 03.03.2012 between 10 AM to 10:30 AM and again between 2 to 3 PM, the accused/appellant herein had committed rape upon the prosecutrix (PW-3) at her house by wrongly confining her in her room and on both occasions, intimidated the prosecutrix (PW-3) that he would kill her and her husband (PW-4) if the prosecutrix (PW-3) revealed the incident.

3. Mr. Qayum, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment inasmuch as the same has been passed upon wrong appreciation of facts. The judgment is contrary to the law. Counsel contends that the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant without considering that there is not enough material which could justify his conviction.

4. It is also the case of the appellant that the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix (PW-3) is highly unreliable and is not trust-worthy and thus, in the absence of any corroboration, the same cannot be a ground to convict the appellant. Similar grounds have been raised with regard to the testimony of Sh.Sanjay/husband of the prosecutrix (PW-4). It is contended that his evidence is contradictory and unbelievable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has failed to consider that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter on account of a monetary dispute as a sum of Rs.50,000/- was borrowed by PW-4 from the appellant who was in a distant relation to the PW-4 (Mama/Maternal Uncle).

5. It has been strongly urged before us that, admittedly, the place of incident is a crowded place; the time of the incident is 10:00 A.M. in the morning and 2:00 P.M. in the afternoon in the month of March, 2012. Learned counsel submits that at 10.00 A.M. and between 2 - 3 P.M., the place would be buzzing with people and it is unbelievable that nobody heard the cries of the prosecutrix (PW-3) or that there was no public witness who had seen the appellant vising the house of the prosecutrix (PW-3) on two occasions.

6. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court has erred in relying upon the medical evidence as the same does not support the case of the prosecution. No DNA examination was carried out despite the fact that the blood sample of the appellant was taken. It is further submitted that merely because semen was detected on some of the clothes of the prosecutrix (PW-3), that cannot connect the appellant to the crime as it would not be unusual to find semen on the clothes of a married woman. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the semen found on the clothes was that of the appellant and in absence thereof, it would be highly unsafe to convict the appellant.

7. Mr. Qayum submitted