Judgment SOBHAGMAL JAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal, filed by the accused, is directed against the judgment dated May II, 1987, of the Sessions Judge, Churu, convicting and sentencing him for the offence under section 376 I. P. C. to 5 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further R. I. for two months. ( 2 ) THE case relates to the incident, which took place on July 16. 1986, at about 12 00 noon in the field of Gula Ram Dhanak situated outside the village Dhudwa-Khara. The victim of the crime was Smt. Vimala wife of Nathu Ram aged about 20 years. The prosecution case, in short, was that on the date of the incident Smt. Vimala had gone to their field to serve meals to her husband. After serving the meals she returned. When, on her way, she was near the field of Gula Ram accused Satya Narayan came to her from behind and caught hold of her. Smt. Vimala cried but the accused forcibly took her into a pit nearby, tied her hands backwards with a cord, threw her on the ground and committed rape with her. She raised cries which attracted Banwari and Dev Karan to the spot. On this the accused left Smt. Vimala and ran away. The cord on the bands of Smt. Vimala was removed by Dev Karan. Banwari and Dev Karan escorted Smt. Vimala to her house where she narrated the incident to ber mcther: in-law. Her husband was called and, accompanied by her husband, she went to the Police Station, Dudhwa Khara and lodged the First Information Report, the same day at 3. 30 p. m. A case under section 376, I. P C. was registered against the accused and investigation started. ( 3 ) SHRI Ram Singh, Station House Officer, proceeded to the spot, prepared the site plan and the memo of inspection. He seized the articles, namely, a Salvar, a jumper and a Chuddi, which Smt Vim ala was wearing at the time of occurrence. He also seized a cord (Rassi) produced by Smt. Vimala, which according to her was used in tying her hands at the time of the incident. All these articles were duly sealed. Smt. Vimala was sent for medical examination to Dr. S. K. Kaushik. On July 18, 1986, the accused was arrested. He also seized a cord (Rassi) produced by Smt. Vimala, which according to her was used in tying her hands at the time of the incident. All these articles were duly sealed. Smt. Vimala was sent for medical examination to Dr. S. K. Kaushik. On July 18, 1986, the accused was arrested. He, too, was examined by Dr. Kaushik who found that be was physically and sexually fit to carry out intercourse. Out of the clothes sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, semen was detected on the chaddi. After investigating the accused was challaned in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who committed him to the Court Qf Sessions for trial. The accused was charged for the offence under section 376, I. P. C. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) IN support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Smt. Vimala, P. W. I, who was the victim of the crime, has narrated the incident in detail. Smt Surja, P. W. 2, is the mother-in-law, to who Smt. Vimala told the incident immediately on reaching home. Banwarilal, P. W. 3, and Dev Karan, P. W. 4, have deposed that they were attracted towards the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries raised by Smt. Vimala and it was Dev Karan who untied the cord from her hands. Mana Ram, P. W. 5, is a Motbir witness. Nathu Ram, P. W. 6, the husband of Smt. Vimala, has stated that her wife had left the field after serving him meals. Mohmmed Yunus, P. W. 7, and Mohan Lal, P. W. 8, are formal witnesses. Ram Singh, P. W. 9, was the Station House Officer, who had investigated the case. The accused in his statement recorded under section 313, Cr. P. C. has denied the prosecution allegations and stated that Dev Karan and Banwari Lal being the relatives of Smt. Vimala were falsely stating against him. He had a quarrel with Smt. Vimala and Smt. Surja and on account of this they had falsely implicated him. ( 5 ) AFTER trial, the Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated May 11, 1987, convicted and sentenced the accused under section 376, I. P. C. to 3 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. He had a quarrel with Smt. Vimala and Smt. Surja and on account of this they had falsely implicated him. ( 5 ) AFTER trial, the Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated May 11, 1987, convicted and sentenced the accused under section 376, I. P. C. to 3 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to two months further R. I. The learned Sessions Judge has held that rape was committed with Smt. Vimala by the accused on the date of the incident as alleged by the prosecution and that offence under section 376, I. P. C. was made out against him. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Sessions Judge the appellant has filed the present appeal in this Court. ( 6 ) I have heard Shri R. K. Gehlot, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Vimal Mathur, Public prosecutor for the State. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether sexual intercourse with Smt. Vimala was committed by the accused as alleged by the prosecution and, if, so, whether it was with or without her consent. The learned Sessions Judge has answered these questions in the affirmative. I have to see whether the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge are erroneous. The evidence of Smt. Vimala is tae most material evidence in the case. She has stated that when she was, returning from the field after serving meals to her husband, the accused stopped her on the way, near the field of Gulla Ram, threw her in the pit nearby and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She kept an crying but her hands were tied with a cord back-wards and she was rendered helpless and completely immobilized. Her cries attracted Banwarilal and Dev Karan at the scene. After they reached there, the cord from her hands was removed by Dev Karan and she was freed. The statement of Smt. Vimala finds support from the evidence of Banwari Lal and Dev Karan. They have deposed that on hearing the cries of Smt. Vimala they rushed to the spot. Smt. Vimala was then lying on the ground in the pit. Seeing them the accused left her and ran away. In the First Information Report which was lodged the same day by Smt. Vimala without any loss of time fully strengthens the version given by Smt. Vimla. Smt. Vimala was then lying on the ground in the pit. Seeing them the accused left her and ran away. In the First Information Report which was lodged the same day by Smt. Vimala without any loss of time fully strengthens the version given by Smt. Vimla. Shri R. K. Gehlot learned counsel for the appellant has, however, urged that no sexual inter-course with Smt. Vimla was committed by the accused and he is being falsely implicated. I do not agree with his contention. It is devoid of any substance. It is rarely that a girl. or a woman in our society makes up a false story showing herself as the victim of sexual inter-course by a stranger or an outsider. The humiliation and indignation one has to suffer in the society throughout ones life on account of such involvement is unthinkable. No one likes to publicize that any female member of his family had lost her virtue, chastity or honour at the hands of a stranger. Rather, the tendency, on the contrary, is to supress such incident in most of the cases. There was no reason whatsoever for Smt. Vimla and the witnesses Banwarilal and Dev Karan to foist or concoct entirely a false case against the accused. After-all why was she interested to hunt up the accused and point the accusing finger at him? The accused was not on inimical relations with Smt. Vimla, her husband or any members his family. I have been taken through the statements of these witnesses. To me the evidence of Smt. Vimla, Banwari Lal and Dev Karan appears to be straightforward and trustworthy. Their testimony is such which inspires confidence. ( 7 ) COMING to the question of consent, I find that no such suggestion by the defence was made in cross examination to Smt. Vimla. Her version that her hands had been tied up with a cord (Rossi) is corroborated by the evidence of Banwari Lal and Lev Karan. It was Dev Karan who freed her hands by untying the Rassi. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that absence of any visible marks of resistance would lead to the inference that she was a consenting party. True, in a case of rape of a grown up woman by a grown up male one expects some marks of injury to evidence that there was resistance. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that absence of any visible marks of resistance would lead to the inference that she was a consenting party. True, in a case of rape of a grown up woman by a grown up male one expects some marks of injury to evidence that there was resistance. In the instant case, however, the place chosen for the offence was a secluded place. Vimlas hands were tied with a cord back-wards and she was immobilized and rendered completely helpless. In such circumstances absence of injury on her person is not indicative of the fact that she was a consenting party. Her hands found tied by Banwan Lal and Dev Karan and were freed by Dev Karan. In such a situation any opposition put by her could not leave any visible marks of resistence. The fact that she raised cries and her hands were found tied unmistakably show that rape was committed with her and she was not a consenting party to the act of sexual inter-course. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has further urged that in this case the prosecution has not examined the Doctor in evidence. To this, the public prosecutor answers that it was the counsel for the accused himself who stipulated and admitted the medical reports and allowed them to be exhibited and admitted in evidence, as Ex P-13 and Ex P-14. The order sheet of the Court dated March 21, 1987 clearly bears out this fact. No inference adverse to the prosecution can, therefore, be drawn for non examination of the Doctor in evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out certain discrepancy in the statement of Smt. Vimla inasmuch as in the First Information Report and the police statement she had stated that the string bolding the Salwar after the incident was retied by the accused himself whereas in the Court she has deposed that the accused had left her naked and the Sa/war-string was tied afterward when her hands were freed by Dev Karan. In my opinion such discrepancy would not render the evidence of Smt. Vimla as unreliable. ( 9 ) AFTER a careful consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution and the arguments urged by the counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in the present appeal. In my opinion such discrepancy would not render the evidence of Smt. Vimla as unreliable. ( 9 ) AFTER a careful consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution and the arguments urged by the counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in the present appeal. I concur with the conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge that rape was committed with Smt. Vimla by the accused without her consent. The conviction of the accused for the offence under section 376, I. P. C. and the sentence of 5 years R. I. plus the fine of Rs. 250/- do not call for any interference by this Court. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.