Ratnaker Bhengra, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.9.2008 and 23.9.2008 respectively passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2007 whereby and whereunder appellant was convicted u/s 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of it to undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The amount of fine realized was to be paid to the victim as compensation.

2. The case of the prosecution case as per, fardbeyan (Ext.-3) of the prosecutrix, P.W. 6 (name concealed) is that on 7.3.2007 at about 5:30 p.m. while she was uprooting linseed (Tissi) crop in her field then her co-villager Arjun Sawaiya came to her and seeing her alone caught hold 'of her and forcibly dragged her to the field of Kiti Purty, just two fields South to her field and laid her down there and after removing her clothes, forcibly raped her and threatened her that if she disclosed the said incident to anyone in the house and village, she would be killed. Thereafter, he fled away from there. She came weeping to her house and narrated about the occurrence to her parents. Thereafter, her father informed the village Munda and other villagers about the occurrence and then the village Munda informed the Tant Nagar O.P. Police Station through a man. Thereafter, police officer of Tant Nagar O.P. came to the village and recorded her fardbeyan.

3. On the basis of her fardbeyan (Ext.-3) containing the aforesaid allegations, a case was registered as Manjhari P.S. Case No.8 of 2007. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused person and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for its trial. Charges was framed against the accused under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.)

4. In examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused person denied the allegations. The version of the accused was that no occurrence as alleged ever took place. He said that there was a dispute with the father of the prosecutrix and therefore he has been falsely implicated in the case.

5. The prosecution examined altogether fourteen witnesses and on the conclusion of the trial the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

6. P.W. 6 is the prosecutrix of the case. She deposed that in the month of March, 2007, Wednesday at about 5:30 p.m. she was uprooting linseed (Tissi) in her field. At that time, Arjun Sawaiya came and took her to the field of Kiti Purty by dragging her and laid her down and removing her clothes forcibly raped her. He fled away and threatened to kill her. She, thereafter informed her parents, and subsequently, her father informed the village Munda about the occurrence and the village Munda in turn informed the police. Police came and recorded her statement. She was sent for medical examination on 9th March, 2007, and was medically examined by the lady Doctor. In her cross-examination she stated that she visited her field at 2:30 p.m. At that time her parents were not in the house. Her field is situated at a distance of about 1 k.m. from her house and 15 to 20 minutes is consumed in visiting the field from her house. She had gone alone to the field' from her house. The said linseed field was besides the fields of others. No one was uprooting linseed crop in the fields situated on either side of her field. The persons who were working in their respective fields situated on either side of her field, left the fields prior to the occurrence, i.e. at about 4 p.m. In cross-examination, she further said that it was not dark at the time of occurrence. Accused was known to her prior to the occurrence.

The house of accused is situated at a distance of about 500 yards from her house. In para 10, she stated that Arjun Sawaiya has two wives and many children but she did not see them. His one chi