The importance of admissible and reliable evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

H.R. Panwar, J.-The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is directed against the Judgment and order dated 10.01.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 21/2004 (16/2004), by which the trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2. The facts giving rise to this criminal appeal, in a nut shell, are that on 28.04.2004, complainant PW. 2 Ramdhan lodged a written report with Police Station, Chitawa, district Nagaur, stating therein that his sister PW. 1 Kumari Manju, the prosecutrix, is a student of Class IV in Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshala, Lalas (Gudeli Nadi) and the accused-appellant is working as a teacher in that school. It is alleged that the appellant seduced the prosecutrix and committed rape for eight to ten times by assuring her that he would give colourable marks to her in examination and also provide new pen and bra. When the students and other person came to know about this repeated act of rape by the appellant on the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix narrated the incidents to the complainant. It has further been alleged that the appellant threatened the prosecutrix that she is maiden and if the villagers and neighbours would come to know about the incident, it would create difficulty in her marriage and as such the prosecutrix did not narrate the incident earlier to her family members. After investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC. After trial, the trial Court, vide impugned Judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Judgment and order impugned, as also the record of the trial Court.

4. PW. 1 Kumari Manju, the prosecutrix, in her statement has stated that she was student of Class V and appellant was their teacher, who is a resident of her village. She has specifically stated that the appellant never retained her after school hours, nor he took her naked photographs, nor evteased or committed any rape upon her. She has stated that the report Exhibit P-1 was not lodged by her, nor the signatures form A to B on the report Exhibit P-1 are of her. The prosecutrix was declared hostile. She was subject to lengthy cross-examination, wherein she has denied the lodging of report with regard to rape on her as well as her signatures on it. She has stated that on being threatened by the police, she made statement Exhibit P-5 under Section 164 CrPC, and denied the contents from A to B. She has categorically stated that appellant has not committed rape on her.

5. PW. 2 Ramdhan is the brother of the prosecutrix PW. 1 and has stated that he did not lodge the report Exhibit P-1 before the police. Though he admitted his signatures from C to D on the report Exhibit P-1 as well as on Chak FIR Exhibit P-6 and other documents but he has specifically stated that he never gave any statement to police regarding committing rape by the appellant on the prosecutrix, nor the prosecutrix told her about rape having been committed on her by the appellant. In cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he stated that the report Exhibit P-1 was written by the police and it only bears his signatures. He further stated that he had not gone through the contents of Exhibit P-1. He has specifically denied commitment of rape on the prosecutix.

6. PW 3 Rajuram is the uncle of the prosecutrix. He has stated that on 24.04.2004, the prosecutrix came weeping but what she told, he does not know as he was sitting in his shop. He was declared hostile. In cr