JUDGMENT :

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court No. 2, Raebareli, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

3. The prosecution case as per written report dated 8.3.2000 is that on 6.3.2000, while the prosecutrix was looking after the peas sowed in her field, then around 5.00 p.m. Chandan of her village came near her and forcibly caught her hand and dragged her into her wheat field and forcibly put her down and committed rape and said that if she would raise alarm, he will kill her. After committing rape, he went away. Her father-in-law and husband were not at home at that point in time. Yesterday evening, when her father-in-law came, she told him of the incident. On the written report, chik first information report was lodged which, during trial was exhibited as Ext.Ka-5. Written report is Ext.Ka-1.

4. The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, made recovery memo of wearing apparel, i.e. peticot of the prosecutrix on which stains of semen were present. He prepared the site plan, Ext.Ka-7, made entry in the G.D. He filed the charge-sheet. The case was committed vide order dated 1.11.2000 to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Section 376 I.P.C. read with section 506 I.P.C. were framed against the accused appellant.

To prove its case, the prosecution has produced PW-1 Heera Devi, PW-2 Dr Geeta Bhatia, PW-3 Dr. S.L. Sharma, Radiologist, PW-4 HC Bramhdeen Chaudhary, PW-5 F.S. Zafri, A.S.I. The prosecution has also exhibited written report Ext.Ka.1, F.I.R. Ext.Ka.5, recovery memo Ext.Ka-8, Site plan Ext.Ka-7, G.D. entry Ext.Ka.6 and charge-sheet. Statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded in which his case was of denial and he clearly stated that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity with father in law of the prosecutrix.

5. The prosecutrix was examined as PW-1. In her examination in chief, she reiterated the prosecution story as mentioned in the written report and stated that she was raped by Chandan who caught her hand and forcibly dragged her in the wheat field and raped her. While committing rape, he threatened to kill if she raised alarm. In her cross examination, she has stated that the place of occurrence is at one bigha distance from her home. She is new for the village. Adjacent to the field, there is a public path on which the people used to come and go. She again stated that the incident took place in her field. In the field of peas, Chandan has committed rape. Then she says that Chandan has not held her hand, nor dragged her. She went to lodge the report on the fifth day of the incident to the police station. She denied the suggestion that her father in law and Sundarlal of her village have inimical terms with the accused appellant.

Dr. Reeta Bhatia has been produced as PW-2 who had medically examined the prosecutrix. She has not found any injury on private part of the prosecutrix in the internal examination. Hymen was torn, old and was changed with loose tag. Slide of vagina was prepared and was sent for forensic examination. She proved the medical examination report, Ext.Ka.2, Supplementary report was also prepared. In the laboratory Report No. 87 of 2000, in the vaginal slide, no sperm was found. From the report, it was found that all the joints were fused. The joint of wrist was also fused. On the basis of this analysis, she opined that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 18 years. No clear opinion about rape has been given by her. She proved Ext.Ka.3, i.e. the supplementary report.

Dr. S.L. Sharma, Radiologist has been examined as PW-3. He proved X-ray report Ext.Ka.4.

PW-4 HC Bramhadeen Chaudhary has p