( 1 ) HUMAN Weakness Or wickedness ; either of the two or both of them together may be the cause of sexual Offences. If the offence is on account of wickedness, the accused naturally deserves no sympathy.

( 2 ) THE appellant-accused was charged for offence under S. 376, Penal Code, on the allegation that on the night of 24-4-1983, between 9. 00 and 10. 30 p. m. he committed rape on the prosecutrix s (P. W. 1, Exh. 12) on the boundary of village Doliya, district Surendranagar and thereby committed offence under S. 376, Penal Code. The reamed Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of the offence charged against him and ordered him to undergo R. I. for seven years. The appellant-accused has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in this appeal.

( 3 ) IT was the prosecution case that the prosecutrix "s" (P. W. 1), at the relevant time was aged about 16 years and was studying in 9th standard and was staying at Wadhwan Vikas Vidhyalaya. She belonged to village Vakhatpar, and the accused, who was at the relevant time serving as, a Teacher, also belonged to the same village Vakhatpar. At the time when the incident took place, the accused was serving at village Mota Madhad which is at a distance of about 10 kms. from village Vakhatpar. However, he was staying at village Vakhatpar and was coming and going to village Mota Madhad on bicycle. It was the prosecution case that the prosecutrix "s" (P. W. 1) was admitted in Wadhwan Vikas Vidhyalaya in the year 1981. As disclosed in the evidence, the prosecutrix had two brothers, namely, Hariram and Mayaram. Both of them were serving at Rajkot. Mayaram, (P. W. 10, Exh. 45) has been examined in the case. He was working as truck driver at Rajkut for the last about 10 years. The mother of the prosecutrix, i. e. , Shantaben (P. W. 7, Exh. 27) has also been examined in the case. Shantaben was aged about 65 years and the father of the prosecutrix, who is blind and deaf, was aged about 70 to 75 years. The prosecutrix has two sisters. Both of them are married. She studied up to 7th standard at village Vakhatpar and thereafter she was admitted at Wadhvan Vikas vidyalaya in the year 1981. As disclosed in Exh. 13, a post card written by the accused and addressed to the prosecutrix, and also as per the evidence of prosecutrix s (P. W. 1) and Shantaben (P. W. 7), the accused helped in getting admission for the prosecutrix in Wadhvan Vikas Vidyalaya. Since there was no other able bodied male member in the family of the prosecutrix to look after the affairs of the house and other work the mother of the prosecutrix took the help of the accused in several matters. As disclosed in Exh. 13, since the year 1981 the accused was in close contact with the family and with the prosecutrix. In Exh. 13 it is stated by the accused that on Saturday-Sunday he could not come, but she (i. e. the prosecutrix) should not worry. As and when Bhavna arrived, she should take the uniform and even if she did not get the uniform she should not worry herself. That her parents were in good mood and that he would surely come on next Saturday-Sunday. In paras 6 and 7 of the deposition of the prosecutrix, P. W. I (Exh. 12), it is clearly stated that on every Saturday the accused was coming to see her. It is also stated that the letter Exh. 13 was written by the accused. On this point there is no cross-examination. As disclosed in the prosecution evidence, the examination of the prosecutrix was going on. April 21, 1983 was holiday. In the afternoon of April 20, 1983 the accused had gone to Wadhvan Vikas Vidyalaya and had met the prosecutrix and had told her that her father was not keeping well and she should accompany him and should come to village Vakhatpar. One Arunaben of the Vikas Vidyalaya was present when this talk took place. On this ground (rather pretext) the prosecutrix was taken by the accused with him from the Vidyalaya. They left the Vidyalaya by rickshaw at about 5