JUDGMENT

1. The appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 27.6.2000 rendered in Sessions Trial No. 37/1998 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 376(2) of the IPC and has been awarded 7 years RI with fine of Rs.200 and in default, further to undergo two months RI.

2. Co-accused Ramesh was also tried with the appellant. He was charged under section 376(2)/34 of the IPC. He was also convicted under section 354 of the IPC and has been awarded sentence for the period already undergone. He has not preferred any appeal.

3. Succinctly stated relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 21.12.1997 in the evening at about 07:00, the prosecutrix was cooking food in her shanty. Her mother had gone to pick rags. Her father, brother and sister had gone to watch some TV show in the neighbouring house. At that time, both the appellant and the co-accused entered into her shanty. Vishnu pulled her by her hands and asked her to permit him to make physical relation. He pushed her on the floor, removed her clothes, his own clothes and raped her. He also pressed her mouth, therefore, she could not screamed. After the incident, Ramesh also asked to allow her to make physical relation but as she resisted, he kissed her and they both ran away. She started weeping. After sometime, her father came and she revealed her ordeal. After two hours, her mother also came, they both revealed the incident before her mother. Father of the prosecutrix went to complain to the father of the accused Vishnu, but he started beating him and also threatened him for dire consequences. The prosecutrix lodged report on the same day at 21:10 in the evening. The police registered crime No. 76/1997 under section 376/34 of the IPC by deducing FIR Ex.P-10 and investigated the same.

4. During the investigation, the police sent the prosecutrix for medical examination vide requisite vide Ex.P-6. Dr. Namrata Krishnan PW3 examined her and found her age between 16 to 18 years but could not gave a definite opinion regarding commission of rape. The police also seized the clothes of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-4-5, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.P-7-8, got them examined medically. They were found fit for sexual intercourse. Semen slides were prepared. The clothes and slides were seized and were sent to the FSL. The police further recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.c and after completing the investigation filed charge sheet.

5. Appellant was charged under section 376(2) of the IPC and co-accused Ramesh was charged under section 376(2) read with 34 of the IPC. They both charged, tried and convicted as stated above in para No. 1.

6. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record. The trial Court has erred in not considering the fact that all the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the parents of the prosecutrix have not fully supported the prosecution. There is no medical evidence to confirm the alleged rape. Chemical analysis of the articles seized during the investigation also does not support the case of the prosecution. The statement of all three main witnesses i.e. prosecutrix PW1 Durgabai, father Ajay PW12 and mother Shakku Bai PW9 are contradictory on all material points. The prosecutrix was a married woman but even then she could not explain the rape committed with her. Her father has stated that the prosecutrix revealed the incident before her but the prosecutrix has not stated such facts. The prosecutrix has denied that she ever lodged FIR. She has denied that the police have ever recorded her statement. The learned trial Court has also ignored the fact that enmity between the prosecutrix and the appellant has been admitted by her in Court in her crossexamination as well as by her father during her examination befor