JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The appellant has challenged judgment dated 20.12.2010 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora, whereby he has been convicted for offence under section 376 RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 22.12.2010, whereby appellant has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission of offence under section 376 RPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12.01.1985, Block Medical Officer, Bandipora, addressed a communication to Police Station, Bandipora, stating therein that on 10.01.1985, an unknown lady came to the hospital complaining of abdominal pain. It was further conveyed in the said communication that on 11.01.1985 at 1:00 a.m., the lady gave birth to a live female baby and left the hospital in the evening. The communication also gave the particulars of the lady and a request was made to the police to handover the baby to the appropriate person. The police on the basis of this report registered FIR No. 77/1985 for offence under section 317 RPC and started investigation of the case. During investigating, it was found that it was the prosecutrix who had given birth to the baby and that the prosecutrix, who was aged about 14/15 years at the relevant time, made a statement before the police that the baby was born on account of sexual intercourse committed by the appellant upon her. Accordingly, after investigation of the case, offence under section 376 RPC was found established against the appellant and the challan was laid before the trial court.

3. On 12.08.1987, charge for offence under section 376 RPC was framed against the appellant and his plea was recorded. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence in support of its case.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined only two witnesses out of four witnesses cited in the challan. Besides examining the prosecutrix, the statement of Dr. Saif-ud-Din Khan was also recorded during the trial of the case. After completion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution were put to the appellant for his explanation and his statement under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C. was recorded on 24.04.2010. In his statement the appellant termed the allegations levelled against him by the prosecutrix as false and he claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The appellant entered his defence and examined DWs Gh. Mohi-ud-Din Khan, Mohammad Yousuf Khan and Mehda Khan as witnesses in defence.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that during the trial of the case, the prosecutrix had made an application before the trial court seeking her re-examination but the said application was dismissed by the trial court vide its order dated 23.06.2010.

6. The learned trial court, on the basis of the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, came to the conclusion that charge of rape as against the appellant stands established and, accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced in terms of the impugned judgment/order.

7. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction on the grounds that in the instant case the prosecutrix has not lodged any report with the police station and, as such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. It has b