JUDGMENT :

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-IV), Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 610/2001, Crime No. 176 of 2000, P.S. Malihabad, Lucknow whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default provision, under section 376 I.P.C. The appellant has been further convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506(2) I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case as per written report dated 11.7.2000 is that on 10.7.2000 at about 7.00 p.m. the daughter of the informant Basanti aged about 14 years went to ease herself. All of a sudden, Nanhey Lal son of Kallu of the same village came and caught hold of the daughter of the informant and threatened that if she raises alarm, he will kill her. By saying this, Nanhey Lal put knife on the chest of the prosecutrix and committed rape on her. After returning home, the prosecutrix told the incident while she was weeping. Since it was late night, therefore, the informant did not go to the police station and as such on the next day, i.e. on 11.7.2000, he went to the police station. The written report is Ex.Ka-1. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day, i.e. on 11.7.2000. The medical examination report is Ex.Ka-2. A supplementary medical report was also prepared which is Ex.Ka-3. Chik FIR was prepared which is Ex.Ka-6. Thereafter, site plan was prepared by the investigating officer which is Ex.Ka-4. The investigating officer after completing the formalities and taking statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. submitted charge-sheet which is Ex.Ka-5. The prosecution to prove its case has produced five witnesses, viz. PW-1 prosecutrix, PW-2 complainant, PW-3 Dr. Sadhna Devi who had medically examined the prosecutrix and prepared medical report as well as supplementary report, PW-4 SI Phool Dev and PW-5 HC Vednath Verma.

3. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has repeated the story, narrated in the written report. In the cross-examination, she has stated that in her statement given before the Magistrate, she has stated her age to be 18 years. She has further stated that her father has applied for compensation from the government. She also stated that her house is at 30 ft. distance from the house of Nanhey Lal. The elder son of Nanhey Lal is 16 years, Pinki is of 14 years, Renu is 11 years of age and the age of Jitendra is 8 years. In front of the house of Nanhey Lal, there is a field of Gaya Prasad where the incident took place and from where the house of the appellant is visible. In the field of Gaya Prasad, crop of Jwar was standing. After sitting in the crop, nobody could see anything in the farm. She stated that she is not aware about inch or feet. She stated that she did not go again to the place of occurrence.

A private lawyer was also engaged who has submitted report of the incident in the police station and she also went with him to the police station. She stated that at the time of incident, there was a little sunlight. She stated that in case somebody raises alarm loudly from the field of Gaya Prasad, then it may be heard from her house. She cried loudly at the time of incident, however, nobody came. Then she stated that wife of Nanhey Lal came out but she was standing there. She was seeing the incident, however, did not come to her rescue. The children of Nanhey Lal were playing outside the house. They also kept watching the accused, raping the prosecutrix but did not came to her rescue.

She denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, she had collided with buffalo of Nanhey Lal and Nanhey Lal slapped her twice. She further stated that the brother of Nanhey Lal, Siyaram resides in the same village which is adjacent to the house of the appellant and her two maternal uncles Ganga Ram