1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.1.2010, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CRA No. 960-SB of 1998 by way of which, the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 13.11.1998 passed in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1995, by way of which the Appellant stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Penal Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 365 Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The Appellant and Geeta, prosecutrix, 19 years of age, student of 10+2 in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Karnal, had known each other for some time. Appellant had been meeting her in front of her school in an attempt to develop intimate relations with her. On 10.5.1995, the Appellant induced her to go with him to Kurukshetra, to get married and she agreed. En route Kurukshetra from Karnal, the Appellant took her to Karna lake (Karnal), and had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes, behind bushes. Thereafter, the Appellant took her to Kurukshetra, stayed with his relatives for 3-4 days and committed rape upon her.
B. The prosecutrix was thrown out after 4 days by the Appellant. She then went to one of the hostels in Kurukshetra University, and stayed there for a few days. The warden of the hostel became suspicious and thus, questioned the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix thus narrated the incident to the warden, who informed her father. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix left the hostel and went to a temple, where she once again met the Appellant. Here, the Appellant convinced her to accompany him to Ambala to get married. When they reached the bus stand, they found her father present there alongwith the police. The Appellant was apprehended.
C. Baldev Raj Soni, father of the prosecutrix, had lodged a complaint on 16.5.1995 under Sections 365 and 366 Indian Penal Code, which was later converted to one under Sections 365 and 376 Indian Penal Code.
D. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 17.5.1995. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure) on 20.5.1995. After complet........