- (1.)CHALLENGE in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2007 whereby the appellant came to be convicted for offences punishable under section 354, 448 and 376 of the I.P. Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months for offence punishable under section 376 of the I.P. Code though no separate sentence has been awarded for offences punishable under section 448 and 354 of the I.P. Code.
(2.)BACKGROUND facts of the prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows :.
The complainant - PW1 Sakhubai is a widow. She resides at village Pisarde alongwith her minor son by name Samadhan and daughter ' Sarlabai (Prosecutrix), in a small house. At the material time, the minor son was school going boy whereas her daughter Sarlabai was about 22/23 years old. They were the only three (3) members residing in the house at that time. The prosecutrix is deaf and dumb since birth. The complainant - PW Sakhubai, however, could communicate with her due to practice, with help of signs and body language. The appellant is their distinct relative. He is a married person. At the relevant time, he was residing at village Pisarde in the house of his inlaws. He is having a daughter by name Sonal. The complainant - PW Sakhubai, her family members and the appellant are members of backward class and belong to lower strata of the society.

On 24th November, 2006, the complainant ' PW Sakhubai had gone to collect fuel wood whereas her son - Samadhan had gone to attend school. Thus, only her young daughter Sarlabai was alone at the house in the relevant noon. By about 2 p.m., the old woman -Sakhubai returned home with a bunch of fuel wood on her head. She saw that the appellant darted out of her house and was running towards an agricultural land. She immediately dropped the bunch of fuel wood and rushed inside the house. She noticed that her daughter - Sarlabai (prosecutrix) was weeping. On her asking by signs as to what had happened, the prosecutrix narrated to her that the appellant had kissed her, pressed her breasts and thereafter, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Both the women came out of the house and were found weeping by the neighbours. They went to Police Station in the same noon. The complainant - PW Sakhubai lodged a report about the incident. The prosecutrix explained the police her narration by means of signs and gestures through medium of her mother. She was sent for clinical examination. On basis of the report (FIR - Exh-11), the police carried out certain investigation. A spot panchanama was drawn. The apparels of the prosecutrix and the appellant were seized under separate panchanamas. The appellant was arrested and subjected to clinical examination. The seized clothes were sent for examination by the Chemical Analyser alongwith blood samples of the prosecutrix and the appellant. On basis of the material gathered during course of investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 448, 354 and 376 of the I.P. Code.

To the charge (Exh-5), the appellant pleaded not guilty. His defence was of simple denial. It was suggested, however, that the complainant and her relatives got him falsely framed in the criminal case due to earlier quarrel on account of suspicion raised against him about theft of a piece of tarpaulin cloth used as a mat by the complainant. For, she suspected that the appellant had committed the theft and had threatened him to involve in a criminal case.

(3.)AT the trial, the prosecution examined in all eleven (11) witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also relied upon certain documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the versions of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly that of the prosecutrix and her mother. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the appellant committed criminal trespass into the house of the complainant with an intention to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix or to commit sexual intercourse with her by use of force. The learned Sessions Judge further held that he did commit both the latter offences. In keeping with such findings, the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as described hereinabove.
Crucial points for determination are :

(i) Whether it is proved beyond a reasonable realm of doubt that the appellant committed criminal house trespass by entering into the small hut like house of the complainant - PW1 Sakhubai with intention to outrage modesty of her daughter - PW Sarlabai or to commit sexual intercourse with her ? (ii) Whether it is proved beyond reasonable realm of doubt that the appellant, on 24th November, 2006 at about 1.00/2.00 p.m., committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW Sarlabai) without her consent and thereby committed offence of rape punishable under section 376 of the I.P. Code ?