M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused Jujhar Singh, who on his conviction under section 324 of the I. P. C. , has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months and also to pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine, to further term of six months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story briefly narrated is as under: Prosecutrix P. W. 1 Liladevi, a young married woman aged about 23 years, at about mid- noon on 26. 9. 1981, with a basket over her head containing wheat-flour, pulses etc. , was going to her field situate in Revna Kachhar Har for preparing mid day-meals for her husband and father-in- law. The appellant-accused Jujhar Singh suddenly came from behind while she was near the field of Laxmi Patwari. He aimed and threw his bal/am like weapon at the basket which consequently fell down on the ground. He then caught her hand and demanded to have sexual intercourse in a nearby field. Mst. Liladevi did not relent and stuck to her ground that she would continue to follow the path of virtue and would not submit to his lust for illegal sexual intercourse. It was then that the appellant-accused got wild with anger and threatened to kill her. Threat had no effect. He grappled with her, gave her shoe beating over her head and face region, twisted and pressed her neck, trampled her under foot after felling her down and then, with his ballam like weapon (Art. A), which had a arai-at the other end, inflicted inumerable wounds over various parts of her face above the neck-region. She lost her consciousness for a while and then regained the same. The appellantaccused meanwhile had fled away. She found P. W. 2 Bhura and then later his brother-in-law P. W. 3 Rampal near her. Both took her home in a bleeding condition. Mst. Liladevi narrated the incident at her house. Thereafter she accompanied with some male members of her family, lodged the report at about 4. 00 p. m. at Police Station Goribar, which is three miles away. The police started their investigation. Site-plan was prepared. Liladevis blood stained clothes (blouse and sari) and so also the appellant-accuseds ballam (Art. A) were seized. Broken pieces of bangles and one arhar plant found at the place were also seized. 00 p. m. at Police Station Goribar, which is three miles away. The police started their investigation. Site-plan was prepared. Liladevis blood stained clothes (blouse and sari) and so also the appellant-accuseds ballam (Art. A) were seized. Broken pieces of bangles and one arhar plant found at the place were also seized. On chemical examination, the prosecutrix clothes, the appellant-accuseds ballam and the leaves of arhar plant were found to be stained with blood. The appellant-accused was, hence, put up for trial under sections 307,354 and 376/511 of the I. P. C. The appellant-accused claimed to be falsely implicated. It was contended that he had been protesting to the male-folk of Mst. Liladevis family for not grazing their cattle and goats in his field and this circumstance had annoyed these men-folk, who, hence, had engineered a fictitious case against him. Two witnesses were also examined in defence. ( 3 ) THE trial Court has acquitted the appellant accused of the offence under sections 376/511 and so also 354 of the I. P. C. by holding that attempt to commit rape was not proved and that the only proof in this regard was that the appellant-accused had assaulted Mst. Liladevi, to compel her for satiation of his lust (see para 44 and last part of para 42 of the trial Courts judgment ). The trial Court, however, found that the appellant accused had voluntarily inflicted multiple simple injuries (more than 13 in number) as detailed in the injury report Ex. P-7 by means of a sharp edged weapon Art. A, which resembled like a ballam, with equally twin features of Kholia and arai. Accordingly, the appellant accused was convicted only of the offence punishable under section 324 I. P. C. and was sentenced-to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, the appellant- accuseds present appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has urged before me that the oral testimony of the prosecutrix Mst. Liladevi in the matter of the incident and so her F. I. R. are not reliable inasmuch as, there is variance in the matter of actual time of the incident. Hence, now, the appellant- accuseds present appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has urged before me that the oral testimony of the prosecutrix Mst. Liladevi in the matter of the incident and so her F. I. R. are not reliable inasmuch as, there is variance in the matter of actual time of the incident. It is equally vehemently urged that her evidence having disclosed that she was unconscious after the incident and also after reaching home and further when she had gone to the hospital and the police station, there was no possibility of appraisal of the incident by her to anyone at her house nor was there any possibility of the recording of such a lengthy F. I. R. by her personally when she was in such an unconscious state of mind. Her averment in Court and so also of P. W. 2 Bhura are stated to be in conflict with their earlier police statements and on this ground too, their story is urged to undependable. Main stress, however, is on the question of sentence and it is urged that there being only simple injuries on the person of the prosecutrix Mst. Liladevi, the appellant-accused deserves to be awarded only sentence of fine, though to some larger extent, out of which the necessary compensation may be given to Mst. Liladevi, who had sustained the multiple in juries over her face region. ( 5 ) ARGUMENTS advanced are completely devoid of any merit, whatsoever. It may well be appreciated that Mst. Liladevi is a illiterate woman. The village people, much less the women folk, do not keep the wrist-watches on their person, so as to be able to give exact timings with regard to each and every event. Usually rough estimate of time is given and that is what has been done in the instant case. From Mst. Liladevis evidence and so also from the evidence of her brother-in-law P. W. 3 Rampal and P. W. 2 Bbura, it is abundantly brought out without any confusion that the incident had taken place some time about midday or a little earlier to that when people of the village get their meals cooked and take their mid-day-meals in their agricultural fields. It is immaterial whether the incident had taken place at 11 a. m. or 12 noon The basic fact remains without dispute that the incident had taken place before mid-day i. e. about 12 noon or I p. m. or at some time near about the same. ( 6 ) SO far as the factum of unconsciousness or otherwise after the incident and thereafter is concerned it is no doubt true that Mst. Liladevi in her evidence at various places has spoken of her unconsciousness (behoshi) but this word behoshi or unconsciousness can not be interpreted in a literal sense in the present circumstances where Mst. Liladevi is found to be a illiterate person belonging to a village community. Her evidence has to be read as a whole. Considering her own evidence it is clear that under the impact of injuries, she had no doubt lost her consciousness for some time but she had regained it not long after and it was then that she had found her brotherin.-law P. W. 3 Rampal and P. W. 2 Bhura near her. These persons had taken her home. From their evidence it is found that she was taken home on foot. Had she been unconscious. She could not have been taken on foot; and on the contrary, she would have been bodily lifted and then carried to her home but there is no such thing in the case. This shows that after regaining consciousness she had gone home in a conscious state, although under the impact of injuries and under the shock of the incident her mental condition may well have been quite disturbed and naturally so. Any person in such a situation would not be able to maintain onets poise and mental equilibrium but such a condition would not tentamount to unconsciousness so as not to be able to speak and give out the facts of the incident. ( 7 ) MST. Liladevi has again stated that on the way to her house, when she had nearly reached it she apprised her brother-in law P. W. 3 Rampal about the incident incriminating the appellant-accused by name as her assailant and on reaching home also, after lapse of some time when she was finding herself mentally better, she had again apprised her mother-in law P. W. 4 Tulsa about the incident incriminating the appellant-accused as the culprit. She is found to have been fully corroborated in this regard both by P. W. 3 Rampal and P. W. 4 Mst. Tulsa. ( 8 ) F. I. R. is found to have been lodged by the prosecutrix Mst. Liladevi alone quite promptly just three hours after at police station Gerihar, which is three miles away. The incident is found to be reported quite ill detail. It is futile to suggest that the woman could not state the incident in such a detail. She had emphatically stated that she was conscious when she had lodged the report with the police. She may well have got mentally disturbed over again thereafter but this, by itself, would not mean that she had lodged the report in any unconscious state of mind. The fact that she had lodged the report at the police station is equally corroborated by Police Head. Constable P. W. 8 Jairamsingh. who has categorically deposed that at the time of lodging the report, Mst. Liladevi was in proper state of mind. Then again, hardly after half an hour of the lodging of the police report, her statement is found to be recorded by P. W. 9 Dr. Lalita Prasad Ahirwar at the hospital. This doctor is absolutely an independent witness and there is no reason to doubt his version. It is obvious that Mst. Liladevi, even at the time when the doctor had recorded her statement and had examined her injuries, was not in unconscious state. The statement recorded by the doctor may well, be inadmissible but the fact that he had recorded the statement can not be discarded as a piece of inadmissible evidence and it shows the conscious state of the prosecutrix throughout till the recording of the statement by the doctor and the examination of her injuries, despite some intermittent loss of consciousness during some intervals of time at different places. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 Mst. Liladevi and so also P. W. 2 Bhura are found to be elaborately confronted with their earlier police-statements. Contradictions and inconsistencies are on minor points but not on the salient facets of the incident. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 Mst. Liladevi and so also P. W. 2 Bhura are found to be elaborately confronted with their earlier police-statements. Contradictions and inconsistencies are on minor points but not on the salient facets of the incident. It is impossible for a person to depose in Court verbatim exactly in the manner, as he/she might have disclosed much earlier to the police investigation officer in the course of the recording of the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during investigation. Variations in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code and those recorded during the trial are, hence, out natural. In the present case, it is equally pertinent to observe that the prosecutrix Mst. Liladevis statement in Court was recorded about 14 months after the incident, and same time equally after recording the statement under Section 161 of the Code. Naturally, hence, it could not be possible for a illiterate woman like P. W. 1 Liladevi to depose in Court all the facts and the sequence of events in an impeccably exact manner as they might have taken place more than 14 months back. Memories are naturally likely to fade to some extent. What is to be seen is whether the witness is consistent throughout in the salient facts of the incident. Minor inconsistencies and contradictions on which the appellants learned counsel is found to have undully stressed, are of no relevance. ( 10 ) ON going through P. W. 1 Mst. Liladevis version, it is found to be fully corroborated by her prompt F. I. R. She is found to be a thoroughly truthful and straightforward witness with no aura of connection or embellishment and as such, she deserves complete reliance irrespective of any other corroborative evidence. She and the members of her family are not found to have any animus or enmity against the appellant-accused, as tried to be vainly and faintly suggested by the appellant accused during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and in the defence evidence. It is impossible that a woman and the members of her family would concect the story for false inculpation of any person by maligning and exposing the honour and chastity of the women herself. Mst. Liladavi, P. W. 3 brother-in-law Rampal and P. W. 4 mother-in law Tulsa are all found to be simple village folk and the illiterate ones. It is impossible that a woman and the members of her family would concect the story for false inculpation of any person by maligning and exposing the honour and chastity of the women herself. Mst. Liladavi, P. W. 3 brother-in-law Rampal and P. W. 4 mother-in law Tulsa are all found to be simple village folk and the illiterate ones. It does not appear to be possible and probable that they would, without any justification, drag the reputation and fair name of a young woman of their own family viz. Liladevi. Thu, being fully satisfied with Mst. Liladevis oral testimony, it is clear that when she did not succumb to the threat and preasure of the appellant-accused for having sexual intercourse with her, the appellant-accused getting enraged and frustrated, inflicted multiple injuries over her face region by means of his ballam like weapon and mercilessly man-handled her by twisting her hands and legs, and by pressing her neck under his country-made boots. ( 11 ) MST. Liladevits injuries, as amply proved by P. W. 9 Dr. Ahirwar lend full authenticity to Liladevis version which equally finds corroboration in some measure, from her mother-in-law Mst. Tulsa, brother-in-law Rampal and the independent witness P. W. 2 Bhura. Bhura had actually seen the person fleeing away from the place of the incident and he had the impression that the person taking recourse to flight, looked like the appellant-accused Jujhar Singh. The fact that it was he and none other stands established from the oral testimony of Mst. Liladevi herself, who had promptly apprised both Rampal and Mst. Tulsa incriminating the appellant-accused. Thus, it stands established that the appellant-accused was the person who had way-laid the prosecutrix Liladevi, caught her unawares and had pierced her face with multiple ballam stabs, on being frustrated in his desire to have illicit sexual intercourse with Mst. Liladevi, who had persistently and resolutely pre-claimed that she was not going the abandon her path of virtue and fidelity. ( 12 ) APART from the reliable evidence of Mst. Liladevi and other witness as discussed above, there are other corroborative circumstances. Mst. Liladevis blouse and sari worn at the relevant time and the appellant-accuseds ballam Article A seized from his house consequent to the memorandum of discovery, are found to be stained with blood as per the Chemical Examinerts report. Liladevi and other witness as discussed above, there are other corroborative circumstances. Mst. Liladevis blouse and sari worn at the relevant time and the appellant-accuseds ballam Article A seized from his house consequent to the memorandum of discovery, are found to be stained with blood as per the Chemical Examinerts report. Likewise, arhar plant, found at the site of the incident, is equally proved to be smeared with blood. Broken pieces of her glass-bangles are also found to be seized from the spot. Thus, the whole prosecution evidence leaves no room for doubt that the appellant-accused had committed the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 13 ) COMING to the question of sentence, the sentence as is found to be actually awarded against the appellant-accused by the trial Court, is found to be quite proper. The appellant-accused does not deserve any leniency in the light of the circumstances on record. The appellant-accused is proved to have used force and violence against a helpless young married woman of his own village in a lone track. Mst. Liladevi, as per the medical evidence Ex. P-9 is found to have a large number of injuries comprising of incised wounds and abrasions. Though the injury report shows 13 injuries but actually, on scrutinizing the injury-report, the injuries are found to be 15 in number. Ghastliness of assault and injuries can well be gauged by considering the nature of injuries. Mst. Liladevi had a incised wound between the left eye and the root of the nose, the other on the left side of the lower lip, the third and fourth on the left and right cheeks respectively, and the two over the right ear. Then again, three incised wounds over the face region and multiple abrasions over the forehead near the eyes, near the eye-lids, checks, ear, neck etc. were found. With so many injuries, one can well imagine how her face may have been seen disfigured with scars that may have been left after the healing of the wounds. Hence the sentence as awarded by the trial Court, does not deserve to be reduced to any extent. ( 14 ) IN the result, thus, the accusedts appeal being without any force, is dismissed; and the order of conviction and sentence, as passed by the trial Court, is maintained in toto. Hence the sentence as awarded by the trial Court, does not deserve to be reduced to any extent. ( 14 ) IN the result, thus, the accusedts appeal being without any force, is dismissed; and the order of conviction and sentence, as passed by the trial Court, is maintained in toto. How ever, it is directed that the whole amount of tine, which is found to be already deposited by the appellantaccused, be paid to the victim Mst. Liladevi by way of compensation in accordance with section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. .