The conviction requires corroborating evidence beyond the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix, which must be credible and consistent.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 21/2019 whereby and whereunder, learned Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years plus fine of Rs. 5,000/- and R. I. for 5 years plus fine of Rs. 500/ - respectively, with default stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, in the intervening night of 29/30 June 2018, the husband of the victim was out of station, at about 1.30 am. accused/appellant entered the house of victim breaking the door of her house, gagged her mouth and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Victim raised alarm whereupon her neighbourer Nanbai (PW-2) came there to whom she narrated the incident. After two days, husband of the victim returned to her village and with him she went to Police Station Gaurella and lodged FIR (Ex. P/1) against the applicant. With the Consent (Ex. P/3) of the prosecutrix, she was sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and charges were framed under Sections 376 and 450 of Indian Penal Code .

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited total 17 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After examination of oral and documentary evidence, learned Judge convicted him under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above in para 1 of this order. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is contrary to the material evidence available on record. He further contended that learned trial Court erred in relying upon the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) as her statement suffered from various inherent defects rendering it wholly unreliable. The prosecution story was neither supported by circumstantial evidence nor medical evidence. He further submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR but learned trial Court has not given due emphasis on it, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court be set-aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the alleged charge.

6. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the matters of Hem Raj v. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 2 SCC 395 : (AIROnLine 2014 SC 183).

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Court below convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC, being based on the material available on record.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the impugned judgment.

9. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her examination-in-chief has stated about the rape mentioning that appellant/accused committed sexual intercourse with her forcefully entering her house in absence of her husband. She admitted in para 6 that at the time of incident her children were with her. The door was closed from inside and there was a wooden supporter (club) in support of the door. In para 8 she further admitted that when Nanbai (PW-2) came at th