JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 5.3.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bundi in Sessions Case No.8/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/Sec.376 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years' RI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's RI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.2008 at about 9.10 AM, report was lodged at Police Station, Lakheri. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 188/2008 was registered for the offence under Section 376 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused appellant. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, which was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track). Thereafter charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses in support of its case and thereafter the statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 376, as indicated above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgment dated 5.3.2009 passed by the trial court is against the fact and material available on record and law. Mr. Garg has further contended that as per prosecution case, the occurrence took place on 10.10.2008 and FIR had been lodged on 11.10.2008. There is no reasonable explanation for lodging the FIR after such a considerable time and explanation given by prosecution should not be accepted. For that purpose, he has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suta Ram @ Ramjilal vs. State of Rajasthan report in 2009(3) WLC (Raj.) page 358 = 2010(2) RLW 1507. 5. He has further contended that in FIR Ex. P/2, time of occurrence has been mentioned at 5.00 PM, but in the statement of prosecutrix recorded before the learned court below and other witnesses, the time of occurrence has been shown as 10 to 12 AM. 5. He has further contended that in FIR Ex. P/2, time of occurrence has been mentioned at 5.00 PM, but in the statement of prosecutrix recorded before the learned court below and other witnesses, the time of occurrence has been shown as 10 to 12 AM. Such type of great contradiction has not proved the prosecution story. Further, he has drawn the attention of this Court on Ex.-P/6 medical report, in which it has been mentioned that finding of rape cannot be given and same can be given after examination of vaginal swab. He has further contended that in MLR, there is no marks of violence found on the body of prosecutrix nor any visible injury nor there was marks of violence on private part of prosecutrix. The report of vaginal swab has never been received. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He has further contended that neither the prosecution witnesses nor medical evidence including PW-5 Dr. Jamna Shankar have proved the prosecution case of committing sexual intercourse. He has further contended that the statement of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses are contradictory to each other and against their own statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has further contended that bare perusal of statements of prosecutrix will reveal that there was no penetration of male organ on private part of female. He has further contended that the husband of prosecutrix has also given beating to her. This itself shows that there is a false implication and there is no evidence of the offence, as alleged under Section 376 IPC. Hence, the judgment of the trial court be set-aside and accused appellant be acquitted. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) Kalu @ Sumer & Anr. vs. State of Raj. reported in 2005(2) RCC 909; ii) Kailash vs. State reported in 2009 (2) WLC (Raj.) 37; iii) Sagar Mal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006 (2) RCC 781. 6. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and contended that after due appreciation of the evicence, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced to the accused appellant. 6. On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same and contended that after due appreciation of the evicence, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced to the accused appellant. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of PW-1 Jamna Bai, PW-2 Suraj Mal, PW-3 Ramraj, PW-4 Hari Ram, PW-5 Jamna Shankar; PW-6 Ashik Hussain, and PW-7 Niraj Kumar. Further he has drawn the attention of this Court on para no. He has drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of PW-1 Jamna Bai, PW-2 Suraj Mal, PW-3 Ramraj, PW-4 Hari Ram, PW-5 Jamna Shankar; PW-6 Ashik Hussain, and PW-7 Niraj Kumar. Further he has drawn the attention of this Court on para no. 21 of the judgment of the trial court, which is reproduced as under: ^^izLrqr dh xbZ uthjksa dk llEeku v/;;u djus ls tkfgj vkrk gS fd uthj la[;k 1 esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fyax ds ;ksuh esa izos'k.k dks vko';d ekuk gS vkSj rHkh cykRdkj dk vijk/k xfBr gksuk dgk gS] fdlh vU; rjhds ls fyax dk izos'k.k dks cykRdkj ugha ekuk x;k gSA uthj la-3 ds vuqlkj orZeku ekeys esa ;g rF; lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qä us viuk fyax ckgj fudkyk gksA orZeku ekeys esa teuk ckbZ us viuh lk{; esa crk;k fd ghjk yky us mls xqMdk dj ?kk?kjk Åij djds og mlds Åij cSB x;k vkSj mlus fpYykus dh dksf'k'k dh rks nkaryh mldh xnZu ij j[kh nh Fkh ,slh fLFkfr esa tc cykRdkj [ksr esa gqvk gS vkSj tcju gqvk gS rks ihfMrk ls ;g vis{kk ugha dh tkuh pkfg;s Fkh fd og ;g ns[krh fd vfHk;qä viuk fyax ckgj fudky jgk gS vkSj diMs [kksy jgk gSA uthj la[;k 4 esa ihfMrk dk c;ku vfo'oluh; ekuk x;k Fkk vkSj blfy;s mldh lEiqf"V gksuk vko';d ekuk x;k Fkk ysfdu orZeku ekeys esa ihfM+rk dk c;ku vfo'oluh; ugha ekuk x;k gSA uthj la[;k 5 ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj cykRdkj ds le; ihfMrk dk llqj ekSds ij igaqp x;k Fkk vkSj bl vk/kkj ij ;g ik;k x;k gS fd ihfMrk lger i{k Fkh ijarq orZeku ekeys esa jkejkt us ihfM+rk vkSj vfHk;qä dks vkifÙktud fLFkfr esa ns[kuk lkfcr ugha gqvk gS vkSj og ihfM+rk dk dksbZ fj'rsnkj Hkh ugha gSA uthj la[;k 6 esa ihfM+rk dks lger i{k ekuk x;k gSa ml ekeys esa vfHk;qä dh iRuh ekSds ij igaqp xbZ Fkh vkSj mlus mls ihfMrk ds Åij ls mBk;k FkkA uthj la-7 esa ihfM+rk lger ik Fkh mls Hkh vfHk;qä ds lkFk lsDl djrs gq, ^^,y** }kjk vyx fd;k x;k FkkA uthj la-8 esa vfHk;qä us ihfM+rk ds lkFk ,d ?kaVs rd eSFkqu fd;k Fkk rks ekeyk lgefr dk ik;k x;kA uthj la-9 esa tehu ij pVkbZ fcNkdj ml ij ihfM+rk ysVh Fkh vkSj iwoZ fu;ksftr ;kstuk ls eSFkqu fd;k x;k Fkk rks ekeyk lgefr dk ik;k x;kA uthj la-10 esa vfHk;qä us viuh isaV [kksyh Fkh vkSj ,d rjQ j[kh Fkh vkSj mlds ckn ihfM+rk dks tehu ij ysVk;k vkSj ml ij cykRdkj fd;k bl fLFkfr dks U;k;ky; us lgefr dh fLFkfr ekukA uthj la-11 esa vfHk;qä }kjk cykRdkj fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS vkSj rc Hkh ihfMrk ds dksbZ pksV ugha ikbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj rc Hkh ekeyk ihfMrk dh lgefr dk ekuk x;k FkkA uthj la-12 esa ihfMrk dk O;ogkj vizk—frd Fkk] mlds 'kjhj ij dksbZ pksV ugha ikbZ xbZ Fkh] pkj fnu nsjh ls ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djkbZ xbZA uthj la-14 esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k fd cpko i{k ds xokg vdlj vfo'oluh; gksrs gS ysfdu ;g ges'kk lgh ugha gksrk gSA uthj la-15 esa ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ekeys leLr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s nks"kflf) dh tkuh pkfg;s dsoy ,d vdsys rF; dks /;ku esa j[kdj dsoy ,d fo'ks"k O;ogkj ds rF; dks /;ku esa j[kdj nks"kflf) ugha tk ldrh gSA uthj la-16 esa vfHk;qä us ihfMrk dks 20@& eSFkqu ds fy;s izLrkfor fd;s Fks blls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k fd nksuksa ds chp bafVes'kh Fkh vkSj eSFkqu lgefr ls fd;k x;k FkkA mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ekuk x;k fd pkdw dh cjkenxh ugha fd;k tkuk vfHk;kstu i{k dh dgkuh dks lafnX/k djrh gSA** 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available to me. The trial court is found to have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case in para no. 20, 21 and 22 of its judgment and observed in para no.22 that rape was committed on prosecutrix. Para no.22 of the judgment of the trial court is reproduced as under:- ^^uthjksa ds izdk'k esa ekeys ds rF;ksa dks ns[kus ls tkfgj vkrk gS fd bl ekeys esa ihfMrk teuk ckbZ dsoy ¼dhj½ tkfr dh gS vkSj vfHk;qä eh.kk tkfr dk gSA nksuksa ds chp fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ lEcU/k] tku igpku ugha gsA nksuksa ,d xkao esa jgrs gS] nksuksa ds e/; dksbZ nq'euh] ysu nsu dk ekeyk ;k vU; rF; gksus dh lk{; ugha gSA teuk ckbZ dh lk{; esa ;g rF; lkfcr gqvk gS fd ghjk yky us mlds lkFk f'k'kqiky ds [ksr esa cykRdkj fd;k FkkA viuh iRuh ds lkFk cykRdkj djus ds rF; dh iqf"V ih-MCY;w-2 lsjtey us Hkh dh gSA jkejkt dks bl xokg us ?kVuk ds ckn ghjk yky }kjk cykRdkj djus dh ckr dgh FkhA ikuk ckbZ bl ekeysa esa vfHk;qä dh tkrh dh gS vkSj mldh lk{; ls ihfMrk dh lk{; esa lUnsg iSnk ugha gksrk gSA vr% bl dkj.k esjh jk; esa izLrqr lk{; ls vfHk;kstu i{k ;g lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gS fd fnukad 10-10-2008 dks fnu esa 5-00 cts xzke e[khnk esa lq[kiky eh.kk ds [ksr esa izkFkhZx;k teuk ckbZ dh lgefr ds fcuk vFkok mldh bPNk ds fo:) tcju eSFkqu dj cykRdkj fd;kA vr% vfHk;qä vkjksfir vijk/k esa nks"kflf) fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrk gSA** 8. The learned trial court is found to have discussed each and every aspect of the matter ad-longum and gave cogent reasons while passing the impugned judgment. I am in full unison with the findings arrived at by the learned trial court and hence the appeal filed by the appellant being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 9. At this stage, Mr. Garg has prayed to this court that benefit of Sec. 433 Cr.P.C. should be given to the accused appellant. This prayer seems to be genuine. 10. In view of above, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. However, the authorities concerned are directed to give the benefit of Section 433 Cr.P.C. to the appellant, in accordance with law.