Short Note : 1. Appellant had been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 1973 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Held : The main question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the act of the accused amounted to rape as defined in section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. There are certain such circumstances which probablize that the sexual intercourse was with the consent of Suhagrani (PW2). At the time of the incident she had admittedly a sickle in her hand. If she was an unwilling party she could have inflicted some injuries by the sickle on the person of the appellant. In the instant case there is no evidence to show that the appellant had any such in juries. According to her she had bleeding injuries on different parts of her body which she had received in the struggle with the appellant. The medical evidence does not support this claim of Suhagrani. The only injury that she had was a scratch over the left hand at the wrist and a cut mark in the right thumb. Her having not reported the incident to her mother-in-law by herself and having told her only when she had come to know about it from Urmila (PW3) is yet another factor which adds to the doubt on the allegation that she was forcibly raped. Even in First Information Report (Ex.P-1) there is no mention about her having reported the incident to her mother-in-law. The possibility that since Baldeo Singh (PW4) came to know about the incident hence she lodged the report does not in the circumstances stand ruled out. Merely because the accused in his defence did not plead consent is no ground for not considering that question if it otherwise made out or even probablized from the material on record. In the opinion of this Court, the two minor injuries on the person of Suhagrani (PW2) and the bangles having broken cannot in the circumstances be taken to be conclusive to prove that force was used. Appellant acquitted. Appeal allowed.