VIMLA SINGH KAPOOR,J. - (1.)Fir (Ex.P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) a married lady and mother of two children, goes to show that on 24.02.1999 she, her husband and children had gone to attend a marriage in the same village and that after sometime she and her children got back home whereas her husband remained there for some more time. It is alleged that the accused/appellant came to her house and asked for a pot to get liquor from outside. After she handed over the pot to the accused/appellant he went away and about an hour thereafter when she was sleeping in her room, he again came to her house, put out the lamp, threw her down and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. It is further alleged that while resisting the act of the accused/appellant, the bangles worn by her broken and she also received nail scratches on her nose. It is further alleged that after committing sexual intercourse with her the accused/appellant ran away and that after her husband returned home she narrated the entire incident to him and on the next day FIR (Ex.P-1) came to be lodged on the basis of which offences under Sections 456 and 376 IPC were registered against the accused/ appellant. After medical examination of the prosecutrix and completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Sections 450 and 376 IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly.
(2.)Learned Court below vide judgment impugned dated 18.11.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No.122/1999 convicted the accused/appellant under sections 376(1) and 450 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500 for each offence, plus default stipulations. Hence this appeal.
(3.)Counsel for the accused/appellant submit that the findings recorded by the Court below are contrary to the evidence of the witnesses in particular that of the prosecutrix but even then the Court below has held the accused/appellant guilty for committing rape on her. They further submit that even the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. According to them, since number of contradictions and omissions are there in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellant is liable to be set aside.