The conviction for rape and house trespass is upheld when supported by credible testimony and circumstantial evidence, and consent is not established.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07-6-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Sakti, Distt. Bilaspur, M.P.(now C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 488/98 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for committing house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life and also for committing rape with the prosecutrix (PW 1) (name not mentioned), convicted him under S.450 and S.376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC) and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and Rs.2000/-, respectively, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and 6 months, respedtively, with a direction to run both the substantive sentences concurrently.

2. The conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 7-08-1998, at about 10.00 to 11.00 p.m., the prosecutrix (PW 1) was sleeping in her room after closing the door from inside the house. The husband of the prosecutrix (PW 1) went for fishing in pond. Small lamp was lightening in the house. The prosecutrix woke up upon hearing barking of dog. In dim light of the lamp, she saw the appellant entering the house after opening the locking chain of the door of the house. The appellant entered into the house. She shouted, then the appellant turned off the lamp, held the hand of the prosecutrix (PW 1), caused her fall down over the cot and forcibly committed intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW 1). After committing the intercourse, he fled away from the house. After about one hour when husband of the prosecutrix (PW 1) namely Kartik Ram (PW 2) reached the house, she narrated the incident and also disclosed the incident to Gambhir, Ghasiya, Sukhlal and Raja. On the next day, she assaulted the appellant with a hunter (Vernacular Matter Omitted....Ed.). The prosecutrix (PW 1) along with his family members reached Police Station Dabhara and lodged the report on 08-8-1998, at about 11.20 a.m. The Investigating Officer, Inspector and SHO, R. K. Dubey (PW 18) recorded the First Information Report (FIR) vide Ext. P1 and registered the crime No. 265/98 against the appellant under S.376 and S.450 of the IPC and started investigation. After obtaining necessary permission, the prosecutrix (PW 1) was medically examined by Dr.Smt. S. D. Kanwar (PW 17) who noticed 8 contusions and abrasions over the body of the prosecutrix (PW 1). As per her opinion, no opinion can be given regarding the rape. She prepared vaginal slides for further chemical analysis and gave her report vide EXT. P16. She also examined the cloth of the prosecutrix (PW 1) having semen like stains. She encircled these stains and referred for chemical analysis vide Ext. P18. Patwari map was prepared vide Ext. P10 and Ext. P11. Cloth (petticoat) of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex - P.3 The slides prepared were handed over to Constable in a sealed condition and the same were seized by the Investigating Officer vide Ext. P13. Spot map was also prepared vide Ext. P24. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under S.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' ). The appellant was arrested and he was examined by Dr.N. P. Mishra (PW 16) who noticed 3 bruises at both of the thigh and lumber region and after examination, the doctor opined that