Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 7/2010 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara dated 18.01.2014 recording conviction of the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and imposing sentence as stated in detail in the impugned judgment and order.

2. The fact of the case briefly summarized are as follows:--

2.1 The victim is said to have gone to answer the call of nature in the afternoon after the lunch and the accused, who is also residing in the same locality, is said to have committed act of rape in the bushes behind the vada. Therefore when the shout was raised, the aunt (mother-in-law) came there and the accused is said to have run away. Thereafter, the complaint came to be filed being C.R. No. I-5/2009 before Nasvadi Police Station for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.2 After the investigation was over, the chargesheet for the alleged offences came to be filed and as the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions.

2.3 Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge below proceeded with the trial and recorded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

2.4 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Court below recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the accused is said to have given explanation regarding the false implication and the political vendetta.

2.5 After hearing learned APP as well as learned advocate for the defence, the Sessions Judge passed impugned judgment and order recording conviction as stated therein.

3. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present appeal on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal inter alia that the Court below has failed to appreciate the material and evidence including the testimony of the victim as well as Champaben. It has been contended that FIR is dictated by one Ramdash and there are discrepancy in the testimony of the victim as well as eyewitness, Champaben and other witnesses, which raises doubt and, therefore, the judgment and order recording conviction may not be sustained.

4. Heard learned advocate, Shri Praful Bhatt appearing with learned advocate, Shri R.S. Panjwani for the appellant-accused and learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani for the respondent-State.

5. Learned advocate, Shri Bhatt referred to the testimony of the victim, PW-1 at Exh. 8 and submitted that she has not supported or corroborated the complaint at Exh. 9 as the complaint refers to the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas in her testimony at Exh. 8, she has only stated that when the accused came and led her down, aunt came and the accused ran away. Thus she has not testified and supported the version with regard to the incident in the complaint. Further learned advocate, Shri Bhatt referred to the testimony of PW-1, victim at Exh. 8 and testimony of PW-4, aunt at Exh. 16 and again submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony. He referred to the testimony of PW-4 at Exh. 16 and submitted that she has stated and admitted that the complaint was dictated by one Ramdas, PW-5 at Exh. 17. He pointedly referred to the omissions in the statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submitted that thus it is not a complaint given by the victim. He pointedly referred to this cross-examination. Learned advocate, Shri Bhatt has also stated that in the cross-examination, she has admitted that when she reached the place of incident, she had seen somebody running away. Learned advocate, Shri Bhatt has therefore submitted that there is discrepancy otherwise she could have referred to the name of the accused as they are neighbour and she would have known hi