1. - Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19.3.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk in sessions case No.14/85 convicting him under Section 341/376 IPC and sentencing him therefor with rigorous imprisonment and fine, the appellant seeks redress in the present appeal.

2. I have heard Mr.Govind Rawat, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Ms.Rekha Madnani, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The prosecution case traces back to a written report lodged on 19.1.1985 by Ramswaroop, the husband of the victim Jeewani with the officer-in-charge, Baroni Police Station alleging that on the previous day, at about 4:00 p.m., while his wife, named hereinabove, had gone to the nearby jungle to collect timber and was returning therewith, the appellant intercepted her, dragged her to a nearby nala and committed rape on her forcibly. The report disclosed that the appellant also assaulted her all over the body, and as she raised alarm, Unkar and Uda, who were herding the cows nearby, rushed to the place of occurrence and found the appellant committing the offending act. On their intervention however, the appellant fled from the place of occurrence. The incident having been reported to the informant later in the night, the written report was lodged the next day.

4. On the said report, the police registered a case under Section 323, 354 & 376 IPC, and on the conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet thereunder against the appellant. He having denied the charge under the above provisions, he was made to stand trial. The prosecution examined, amongst others, the prosecutrix PW-6, the two persons named in the FIR, Unkar PW-7 and Uda PW-8, Dr.Om Prakash Joshi PW-13, who had medically examined the victim and her husband Ramswaroop, the informant, PW-1, apart from the investigating officer. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the charge, and as desired by him, also adduced defence evidence by examining three witnesses. At the conclusion of the trial, to reiterate, the appellant was convicted by the judgment and order impugned under Section 376 & 341 IPC.

5. The learned amicus curiae has emphatically argued that the evidence of the prosecutrix PW-6, PW-7 Unkar and PW-8 Uda is inconsistent with the version set out in the FIR, and thus, the prosecution case is wholly untrustworthy. According to him Unkar PW-7 & Uda PW-8 have contradicted themselves on material particulars vis-a-vis the incident, which thus, belies the veracity of the charge levelled against the appellant. The learned amicus curiae has argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix, when read with the medical evidence, renders the same wholly unacceptable, and thus, the learned trial court ought to have acquitted the appellant. He has argued that the injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix could not have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon, like an axe, as alleged thus, rendering the prosecution case wholly unacceptable. It has been urged as well that the appellant, at the relevant time, was a minor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the evidence of the prosecutrix PW-6 and the two witnesses Unkar PW-7 & Uda PW-8 does prove the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. Referring to the site plan, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that it is apparent therefrom that the sign of dragging was detected at the place of occurrence, and that, broken bangles of the prosecutrix and her key was also retrieved therefrom. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix fully corroborated her version, and thus, the charge having been proved against the appellant, the impugned judgment and order does not warrant any interference.

7. Before analyzing the arguments advanced, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant evidence.

8. PW-1 Ramswaroop, the h