The court's affirmation of guilt was based on credible evidence and legal standards for conviction under Section 376 of IPC.

JUDGEMENT

1.Ld. Counsel Mr. K.D. Panchal appearing for the appellant-accused is absent when called out. On 7.2.2002, when this matter was listed for final hearing, ld. counsel for the appellant was found absent and, therefore, this Court passed the following order:-

"When this Appeal was called out and taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for appellant was absent. Even on second call, he is absent.

Learned APP Ms. Punani appearing for the respondent State has taken me through relevant part of the judgment. This appeal has been listed today on Board for final hearing as Counsel for appellant has mentioned specifically that same should be listed for final hearing and should be heard peremptorily as appellant has undergone substantive part of the sentence. On one hand, counsel for the appellant prays to fix up this appeal for final hearing and on the other hand, he is found absent when called out. Because of the legal constraint and interpretation of Section 386 of CrPC, it is not legally possible for this Court to dismiss this appeal on default.

So, in the interest of justice, adjourned on 14th February, 2002. On that day, this appeal shall be heard and decided on the strength of submissions of the learned APP and on merits. S.O. to 14.2.2002." Thereafter, on 14.2.2002, the matter could not be heard and matter was adjourned to this date.

2.Today also, ld. counsel Mr. Panchal for the appellant is absent when matter is called out. Hence, this Court is inclined to deal with the matter on merits in his absence as the same cannot be dismissed for default in view of the settled legal position.

3.This appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused Sitaram Tulsiram Sisodia against the judgment dated 23.3.2001 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 307 of 2000 whereby the ld. trial Judge has convicted the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R/I for 7 Years with the fine of Rs. 21,000/ ( Rs. Twenty One thousand only ), I/d to undergo S/I for 2 Years. Ld. trial Judge also ordered that out of the amount of fine, Rs. 20,000/ (Rs. Twenty thousand only ) be paid by way of compensation to the prosecutrix.

4.Ld.APP Ms. Punani has taken me through the impugned judgment and oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution. To evaluate the case of the appellant, it would be proper to state the facts in brief. According to the prosecution, complainant Keshavlal Shyamlal Soni, R/o Santoshnagar Chhapra, Kubernagar, was a close friend of appellant accused Sitaram Tulsiram Sisodia who used to visit the residence of Keshavlal. He, being close friend of the complainant, his visits were frequent. Wife of Keshavlal was not completely mentally sound or healthy and she being pregnant, was also to go to Primary Health Centre for treatment. During this period, appellant accused allured the eldest daughter-victim Rekha, of the complainant.

According to the prosecution, victim girl has been raped against her will and without her free consent. Because of the sexual intercourse, victim girl became pregnant and complainant came to know about this fact only when foetus had become six months old. A complaint was lodged by the complainant before the police and after investigation and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the police chargesheeted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec