JUDGMENT

G.S. Sistani, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2000 and order on sentence dated 23.09.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in FIR No. 134/99, PS Kalyan Puri, under section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, `IPC'), by virtue of which the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of which, the said appellant was directed to undergo a further Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Trial Court, briefly stated are.

3. On 27.05.1999, Smt. Bedo wife of Shri Satpal made a statement before the police that at about 11 AM on 27.05.1999 she went to look for her mentally retarded girl, (name withheld, hereinafter referred to as, `the victim') at her jhuggi in 18 block, Kalyanpuri Delhi but she did not find her there. She went to the jhuggi of her neighbour, Sh. Maruti (appellant herein) and saw that Salwar of her daughter victim was put off and she was lying on the cot (palang) of Maruti, who was lying naked on her and was doing the wrong act. After seeing her, Maruti stood up and immediately covered himself with the help of a towel. SI Puran Chand recorded the statement of Smt. Bedo and made his endorsement thereon. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan before the concerned Magistrate for trial of the appellant for the offence under section 376, IPC. Post trial, the appellant was found guilty of the said offence.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined eleven (11) witnesses. Five witnesses were examined by the defence. Statement of the appellant was also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. It would be useful to discuss the evidence of some of the material witnesses in detail.

5. PW-1, Smt. Bedo, w/o Sh. Satpal, deposed in her examination-in-chief that she is illiterate so she does not remember the date and month of the incident but it was about five-six months ago in this year. At about 10:30 AM she went to see her daughter to provide her food as her daughter was mentally upset. She had called her daughter in her neighbourhood but she was not there. The jhuggi of the appellant is situated after one jhuggi of her jhuggi. The jhuggi which was situated in front of the other jhuggi was curtained. She entered in the said jhuggi after pushing the curtain but her daughter was not there. Thereafter she had pushed another curtain and she saw her daughter (victim) was lying on a palang in the said jhuggi and her legs were down from the palang and her salwar had also been put off upto knees and Maruti (appellant) was not having baniyan and kacha on his person and he was over her daughter. After seeing her, he immediately separated from her daughter and put a towel around him. She immediately called three-five persons from the neighbourhood and told them that appellant, Maruti was lying naked on her daughter. Thereafter, she went to the police station to lodge a report. From the police station two police constables accompanied her and they all came to the jhuggi of Maruti and the appellant was taken by them to the police station and her daughter was also taken by the police. Thereafter police recorded her statement in the police station, the same is Ex.PW1/A which bears her signature at point A. Police took her daughter for the medical examination and she remained sitting inside the police station till her daughter came back from the hospital. Thereafter she along with her daughter came back to her jhuggi. Her daughter's age was about 23 or 24 years.

6. In her cross-examination by learned APP for the State, PW-1 deposed that it was correct that when she saw Maruti he was laid down naked on her daughter and committing wrong act with her daughter. (witness stated the wrong acts means which is done by husband and wife).

7. In her cross-examination by learned counsel for the appell