GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant having been convicted of an offence punishable under section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced to 3 years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 200. 00- in default of payment of fine to a further R. I. by judgment dated 26th June, 1982, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1982 has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) challenging his aforesaid conviction and sentence. ( 2 ) THE appellant is alleged to have forcibly committed sexual intercourse with Premwatibai, a girl about 16 years of age, on 13/11/1981 against her will. It was alleged that about 10-12 days prior to the date of incident the prosecutrix was working for Fakir Chand, the father of the appellant and sowing seeds in his agricultural field. On the date of incident the appellant took the prosecutrix to a field for carrying on sowing operations. On the date of incident the prosecutrix was alone and therefore the appellant attempted sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix was forcibly, thrown on the ground and sexually raped. She narrated the incident to her younger sister Giarsibai (P. W. 6) and went back home with her where she informed her mother and grandmother. Father Gendalal (P. W. 4) was also informed about the incident in the evening when he came back home. Thereafter, they started to lodge the report to Police Station, Lakhanwada situated at a distance of 12 kilometers from the village. The report was lodged at 6-30 a. m. on 14/11/1981. Prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to Dr. (Mrs.) Jam (P. W. 2) who found signs of sexual intercourse, and gave her report, Ex. P-4. Thereafter the appellant was put on trial, as aforesaid. ( 3 ) DURING the trial the appellant admitted that the prosecutrix had gone to do sowing operations in his field where she and appellant were alone. He, however, denied having committed any sexual intercourse with her. According to him, Premwatibai bad suffered injury because of a fall on a piece of wood and he was falsely implicated. Learned Judge relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix and medical evidence of Dr. (Mrs) Jam held that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and by using force against her. According to him, Premwatibai bad suffered injury because of a fall on a piece of wood and he was falsely implicated. Learned Judge relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix and medical evidence of Dr. (Mrs) Jam held that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent and by using force against her. Evidence of Gendalal (P. W. 4) and Giarsibai (P. W. 6) was held to provide sufficient corroboration. The defence was found to be unbelievable. That is how, the appellant remains convicted and sentenced. ( 4 ) SUBMISSION of the learned counsel is that evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that there was any sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix Premwatibai. He further submitted that in case it was to be held that there was some sexual intercourse it must be held to have been committed with her consent. Absence of external injuries is the evidence of consent. Reliance is place on a Division Bench decision in State Government v. Sheodayal. The learned Government Advocate however, seriously defended the conviction and sentence. ( 5 ) DR. (Mrs.) Jam (P. W. 2) had examined the prosecutrix on 14-11-1981 at about 11-30 a. m. The incident is said to have happened at 6 p. m. on 13-11-1981. Under the circumstances medical examination was within 24 hours. According to the lady doctor posterior vaginal wall showed tears, on the extending from hymen upwards. She also found fresh blood present. In cross-examination she has stated that tears on the vagina wall were fresh. The injury according to her was caused by hard and blunt object due to violent trauma to the private parts. It was suggested to Dr. (Mrs.) Jam that such an injury could be caused by a piece of wood and she stated that it could he caused if the circumstances so existed. This evidence would leave no doubt in the mind of this Court that there had been forcible interference with the vagina of the prosecutrix within 24 hours of her examination. Premwatibai (P. W. 1), the prosecutrix has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by Ramsingh who caught hold of her inspite of her opposition and fell her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse. She also stated that as a result of sexual intercourse blood started oozing out from her vagina. Premwatibai (P. W. 1), the prosecutrix has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by Ramsingh who caught hold of her inspite of her opposition and fell her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse. She also stated that as a result of sexual intercourse blood started oozing out from her vagina. From her statement it would appear that she was alone at the time of incident. In cross-examination she was referred to her case diary statement in which several omissions relating to sowing operations and type of grain sowed were pointed out. These omission, however, do not relate to specific fact in issue. She remained firm about the fact that she was forcibly fell on the ground and subjected to sexual intercourse. She also stated that in this process her bangles were broken. She denied the suggestion that she was a consenting party. It was suggested to her that a piece of wood accidentally went into in her vagina while she sat for purposes of urination but she denied the said suggestion. Her evidence read as a whole is clear and cogent. Giarsibai (P. W. 6) is her younger sister whom she met immediately after the incident and narratedthe fact that appellant bad committed sexual intercourse with her. Clearly, therefore, evidence of prosecutrix Premwatibai is any supported by Dr. (Mrs.) Jam and Giarsibai (P. W. 6 ). If any further corroboration is required it is available from the evidence of Gendalal (P. W. 4) who is the father of the prosecutrix and seizure of broken bangles from the spot by Poona Ram (P. W. 9 ). This would leave no doubt in the mind of this Court that it was the appellant who had committed the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will. The submission that absence of mark of violence on her person should be accepted as the evidence of consent cannot be accepting. The sexual act has been performed in an agricultural filed which was ready for sowing indicates that the surface was not hard. Even otherwise absence of injuries by themselves would not be sufficient to infer consent. Bangles of girl consenting to sexual intercourse would never be found broken as in the instant case. Under the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in rejecting the theory of consent. Indeed, no such defence was taken by the appellant in his examination under section 313. Even otherwise absence of injuries by themselves would not be sufficient to infer consent. Bangles of girl consenting to sexual intercourse would never be found broken as in the instant case. Under the circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in rejecting the theory of consent. Indeed, no such defence was taken by the appellant in his examination under section 313. Cr1. P. C. The defence which he has taken is so patently unnatural that it needs no serious consideration. It would be a strange coincidence if a piece of wood would forcefully enter into the vagina of the girl while she sat for purposes of urination. It was nothing but figment of imagination of the appellant. ( 6 ) AS a result of the discussion aforesaid, the conviction of the appellant is held to be well-deserved and maintained. As far as his sentence is concerned the learned Judge has already awarded a lenient sentence. A sentence of 3 years for an offence like the present one cannot be said to be harsh. No case for interference in the judgment is therefore made out. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .