R.L. Khurana, J.—The appellant, Vijander Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused stands convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 36-S/7 of 1997 for the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 9.11. 1998 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. The prosecutrix Kumari Savitri, daughter of Bhajan Dass, is a resident of village Khabal Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla. The accused is also a resident of the said village. On 20.8.1996 at about 5 p.m., the prosecutrix had gone to the field of her maternal uncle to fetch grass. It was raining at that time. Having moved the grass, she kept the same in a "Kilta" (basket). When she was preparing to return home and was fixing the "Kilta” on her shoulders, the accused all of a sudden appeared at the scene. He pushed the "Kilta” aside and thereafter by holding the prosecutrix tightly in his arms, he threw her on the ground. He lowered his pant and her salwar and subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix though cried for help, such cries could not be heard by anyone due to rain. The accused after having committed the sexual intercourse ran away from the scene. The prosecutrix on reaching home narrated the occurrence to her mother who in turn informed her father and uncle (fathers brother). On the following day, the prosecutrix accompanied by her uncle proceeded towards the police station for making the report. However, she happened to meet the police at Tikkri and she lodged the report on the basis of which the present case came to be registered vide FIR No. 172 of 1996.

3. During the investigation of the case, the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. Such examination revealed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse recently.

4. The accused was arrested, challaned and sent up for trial. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is that of denial. He has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity for two reasons, namely, he, his father and other family members had campaigned for the rival candidate during the Panchayat elections in which elections, paternal uncle of the prosecutrix was a candidate, and, that during the childhood of the accused and the prosecutrix, there was an understanding between their parents that they would be married to each other on becoming of marriagable age, but the accused on attaining adulthood had refused to marry the prosecutrix.

5. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring home the offence against the accused. No defence was led by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the material placed before him has convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

6. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused, the learned Counsel for the accused at the very outset raised an objection that though double record of evidence was maintained by the learned trial Court, that is, in English and Hindi, there is a vast difference in the prosecution story in the two English and Hindi records of evidence. He further contended that Hindi being the Court language of all the courts subordinate to the High Court in the State of Himachal Pradesh, reliance will have to be placed on the Hindi record of evidence.

7. Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) deals with "Evidence in inquiries and trials." Section 276 provides for maintenance of the record in trials before Court of Session. It reads :— "276. Record in trial before Court of Session.—(1) In all trials before a Court of Session, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the Presiding Judge himself or