1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 20.1.1997 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 117/95 whereby he acquitted the accused-respondent for offence u/s. 376 & 342 IPC.

2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances :

(i) On 16.6.1995, PW-2 Narmada, aged about 20 years (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) lodged a written report Ex.P/3 with the Police Station Nathdwara before PW-7 Shyam Sundar stating that on 14.6.1995 at about noon, she was working in the field along with her father-in-law PW-6 Amba Lal and at that time, accused-respondent who was neighbourer to her came in the field and he took his father-in-law on some pretext and thereafter within 15 to 20 minutes, he came back and caught hold prosecutrix PW-2 Narmada and took her towards the field and put her on the ground and put her penis into her vagina forcibly and then committed rape with her and when she tried to cry, he gagged.her mouth, hearing her cries, her Devrani PW-3 Lila ran towards that place and lifted the accused-respondent who was lying over the prosecutrix PW-2 Narmada and thereafter he ran away. It is further stated in the report that after that incident, she came to her house and told the whole story to the members of the house and since mental condition of her husband was not normal, she was sent to her parents' house and today, her Devar PW-4 Laxman came to take her and she accompanied her and in these circumstances, the report was lodged on 16.6.1995 and at the time of lodging the report Ex.P/3, her Devar PW-4 Laxman was with her report.

3. On this report police chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/6 and started investigation. On report Ex.P/3, an endorsement was made by PW-7 Shyam Sundar that he was told that the accused-respondent had sex with the prosecutrix for 5 to 7 minutes and when semen oozed out, PW-3 reached there and accused-respondent was lifted and he ran away.

4. During investigation, PW-2 Narmada was got medically examined for the purpose of ascertaining her age and medical examination report is Ex.P/5 which revealed that she was 18 years of age and that report was admitted by the learned counsel for the accused and accused-respondent was arrested through Fard Ex.P/4 on 17.6.1995.

5. Prosecutrix PW-2 Narmada was also got medically examined by PW- 8 Dr. Anees Ahmed for the purpose of ascertaining whether the rape was committed with her or not and her medical examination report is Ex.P/11 as per which two abrasions were found on the hand of the PW- 2 Narmada.

6. On 18.10.1995 the learned Sessions Judge framed charge for offence u/s. 376 IPC against the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. During trial, as many as 9 witnesses have been produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused-respondent was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and no witnesses was examined in defence.

8. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused-respondent through his judgment and order dated 20.1.1997 inter alia holding that :

(i) That the accused-respondent in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted that he had sex with the prosecutrix PW-2 on the relevant day, but that was with her consent.

(ii) That PW-2 Narmada was not aware of the fact that PW-3 Lila was also in the field.

(iii) That PW-2 Narmada has nowhere stated in her statement that she made hue and cry and in cross-examination, she has admitted that PW-3 Lila came there not because of her cry.

(iv) That the incident has taken place in the field of sugarcane and PW-2 Narmada has stated that he lifted her Peticot and Saree and in case sex with PW-2 Narmada would have been against her will, some sort of abrasions must have been found on her back etc.

(v) The fact that after the incident PW-2 Narmada went to her parents' house and the fact that she stated that she would commit suicide after falling into well also go to show that she was feeling sham