Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 2, 1987 rendered by Sessions Judge, Bundi whereby, he convicted the accused-appellant in the offences under Sections 376 and 341 of IPC and sentenced them as under:

u/S. 376 of IPC:

Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 150; in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

u/S. 341 of IPC:

Rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and a fine of Rs. 15/-; in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story succinctly runs as under:-

That on 1st April, 1987 at about 3:00 pm, the prosecutrix Geeta was coming back to her village after collecting fodder from her field. It is alleged that when she reached near the pond of the village, the accused Kishan S/o. Badri Meena came and obstructed her way. He squeezed her breasts and made her to lie on the ground. It is further alleged that the accused lifted her ghaghara and in hurried heed ravished her against her will and without her consent. She struggled and screamed but he did not stop. Having heard her screams, one Shri Ramdutt S/o. Kanha Meena came there running and when he alarmed, the accused fled from there The prosecutrix filed a written report Ex. P. 2 to District Collector, Bundi whereupon, the police lodged FIR Ex. P/3 and commenced investigation.

3. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, prepared site plan Ex. P.4, recovered the broken pieces of bangles from the spot vide memo Ex. P/5, got the prosecutrix medically examined, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. P/8 and after usual investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet and sent him for trial to the Court.

4. In due course of time, the case appeared before Sessions Judge, Bundi, who indicated the accused for the offences under Sections 376 and 341 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all 7 witnesses. The accused-appellant in his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. claimed innocence. On completion of trial, the court found the appellant guilty and convicted him in the offences under Sections 376 and 341 of IPC and sentenced as indicated hereinabove.

5. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and with their assistance scanned the relevant material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that the identity of the accused Kishan is not established beyond reasonable doubt. While drawing my attention to the statements of the prosecutrix given in her cross-examination, he has contended that the prosecutrix did not know him from earlier. It was her mother-in-law PW.6 Kasturi who told her that the person who obstructed her way and ravished her, was nobody else but the accused Kishan S/o Badri. It is very relevant to reproduce her statement which is thus:-

^^eSa fd'ku eqfYte dks igys ls ugha tkurh Fkh] eSa bldk ?kwa?kV fudkyrh FkhA xkao ds lHkh enZ vknfe;ksa dk eSa ?kwa?kV fudkyrh FkhA eq>s ;gh irk Fkk fd eqfYte fd'ku gekjs xkao dk gS] blds vykok vkSj dqN irk ugha FkkA eqfYte fd'ku dk uke Hkh eq>s ?kVuk ds fnu gh ekyqe iM+kA eSa tc jksrh jksrh ?kVuk ds ckn vius ?kj xbZ rc eSaus viuh lklq ls iwNk fd og dkSu Fkk rks mlus crk;k fd og cnzh dk yM+dk fd'ku gSA esjh lkl us gh esjs iwNus ij eqfYte dk uke crk;kA**

Whereas, PW.6 the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix deposed that Geeta came back to house at about 3:00 p.m. She apprised with the fact that the accused Kishan S/o. Badri obstructed her way and made her to lie on the ground and sat on her breasts. In her cross-examination, she has revealed that it was Geeta who disclosed the name of the rapist to be Kishan S/o. Badri. Albeit, in the written complaint Ex. P/ 2, the name of the accused Kishan figure