1. - This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and order dated passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 43/2003, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences under sections 376 and 450 IPC as under:

(i) Under Section 376 IPC : Seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default of payment of amount of fine further to undergo one year simple imprisonment;

(ii) Under Section 450 IPC : Four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of amount of fine further to undergo one year simple imprisonment.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order Impugned, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and public prosecutor for the State. Perused the judgment and order impugned as also record of the trial court.

4. On 23.2.2003, PW-4 Radha Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, lodged a first information report Ex. P-4 with Police Station Sadulshar to the effect that a day prior to the lodging of FIR, she went from her house to collect the firewood and her daughter was alone in the house. After an hour, when she came back, she found her daughter weeping. On being asked she informed that appellant Phula came in the house by jumping the wall and tied her mouth with Chunni and committed rape on her. The police ensued the investigation for the offence under Section 376 and 450 IPC. After usual, investigation, the police filed Challan against the appellant for the offences noticed above. Before the trial court, the prosecution produced as many as 6 witnesses and tendered in evidence documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-8. The appellant made statement under Section 313 of the Code and denied the allegation and produced in defence DW-1 Birbalram.

5. The trial court by the judgment and order impugned convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the first Information report. It has been further contended that in FIR, the complainant stated that Vimal Devi Krishna Devi, Parmanand and other persons reached at the place of occurrence and prosecutrix narrated the incident to them, however, in the statement of prosecutrix in Court she did not name these persons, on the contrary stated that one Rameshwar Soni, ward member came and before whom she narrated the occurrence. It has been further contended that from the statement of prosecutrix, it no where appears that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. According to learned counsel for the appellant the very essential ingredients of rape as envisaged under Section 375 IPC have not been made out from the statement of prosecution witnesses, in as much as the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with thq prosecutrix against her will and consent and, therefore, the offence under Section 376 IPC has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has further contended that the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC has also not been established. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant committed house trespass in order to commit the offence punishable with imprisonment for life. According to learned counsel, if at all any offence is established then it would not traverse beyond Section 452 and 354 IPC.

7. Learned public prosecutor supported the judgment and order impugned.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission made by the counsel for the parties.

9. Before the trial court, the prosecutrix was examined PW-5. She stated that whil