JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: Appellant has filed this appeal, against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No: 8 of 1989, dated 1-6-1991, whereby he has been convicted under Section 376 for 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- payable to the mother of the prosecutrix, in default whereof he has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Appellant has been acquitted of the other charge framed against him under Section 306 I.P.C. 2. Appellant was prosecuted for having allegedly committed the offence of rape against the wishes of the prosecutrix namely kumari Tripta Devi on 23-7-1988 when she had gone out to answer the call of nature at about 5-00 p.m. According to prosecution, since it was raining so she had taken with her umbrella and a Garbi full of water, when the appellant came there and caught her from behind and made the prosecutrix lie on the ground and also took of his Pant. Appellant is further stated to have tied down both of her hands on the back side with her Dupatta and thereafter forcibly committed sexual intercourse. According to prosecution, the appellant threatened the prosecutrix that in case she raised an alarm he would kill her. It has come in prosecution evidence that since Kumari Tripta Devi did not return home after answering the call of nature, her mother, PW 2 - Ram Piari alongwith her sister Asha Kumari came to the spot and they saw the occurrence. On seeing both of them, the appellant fled frorr the place of occurrence. Hands of the prosecutrix PW 1 Kumari Tripta Devi were untied by her mother and she was brought home, on reaching where she narrated the incident to her mother, sister and Bhabhi Raj Kumari PW 3, who was present in house. According to prosecution, father of the prosecutrix was not at home and thus she came to Police Post at Bilaspur accompanied by her mother and sister as also PW 12 Onkar Singh Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badgaon. Report Ex.PA was lodged which was recorded by PW 8 Birbal Ram, A.S.I, on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. Ex.PL was recorded at Police Station Talai by PW 13 Onkar Singh Moharar Head Constable. 3. Prosecutrix was examined by the lady doctor, PW-5 Dr. Mrs. S. Agnihotri and she issued Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PE. Report Ex.PA was lodged which was recorded by PW 8 Birbal Ram, A.S.I, on the basis whereof formal F.I.R. Ex.PL was recorded at Police Station Talai by PW 13 Onkar Singh Moharar Head Constable. 3. Prosecutrix was examined by the lady doctor, PW-5 Dr. Mrs. S. Agnihotri and she issued Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PE. During the course of investigation, which was carried out by PW-14 Gurditta Ram SI/SHO, Lota as well as umbrella as also Dupatta with which the hands of the prosecutrix had been tied down, were taken into possession vide recovery memo. For ascertaining the age of the prosecutrix, extract (Ex.PG) from the records of the Gram Panchayat was also obtained by the investigator. Appellant was also got examined by the Police and such examination was undertaken by Dr. Chct Ram Verma, PW-6. After recording evidence and completion of the investigation, the appellant was challancd under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. before the trial court who committed him to the court of Sessions since the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. was exclusively tribal by the Sessions Court. Appellant was charged under Sections 376/506 I.P.C. and after conclusion of the trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. Explanation of the appellant given in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he is an innocent person and because of his enmity with Onkar Singh (PW- 12) on account of the party basis, he has been implicated in this case. According to the appellant, said witness had deposed against him on 3 or 4 occasion, otherwise his case is of denial in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. In this case PW-1 is prosccutrix, who has narrated the incident and has explained as to how the offence was committed against her by the appellant, PW-2 is Ram Piari mother of the prosecutrix and PW-3 is her Bhabi. Besides these three witnesses, other material witnesses are PW-S Dr. Mrs. S. Agnihotri, Medical Officer, who examined the prosecutrix and issued M.L.C. Ex.PE and according to her the possibility of rape could not be ruled out and she had found marks of violence on the body of the prosecutrix and have been detailed by her in the Medico-Legal Certificate Ex.PE. PW-6 is Dr. Mrs. S. Agnihotri, Medical Officer, who examined the prosecutrix and issued M.L.C. Ex.PE and according to her the possibility of rape could not be ruled out and she had found marks of violence on the body of the prosecutrix and have been detailed by her in the Medico-Legal Certificate Ex.PE. PW-6 is Dr. Chet Ram Verma, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Berthin and according to him, the appellant was found capable of performing sexual intercourse and he had issued Medico-Legal Certificate in this behalf, which is Ex.PF under his signatures. In his cross examination he has admitted that he did not remember if the prosecutrix had come to her in the hospital on that day for her examination and he has further denied the suggestion of the defence that the prosecutrix had appeared before him on 23rd July, 1988, that is the date of occurrence, for her examination or that he had refused to issue such certificate after her examination. Other material witness in this case is PW-12 Onkar Chand, Pradhan, who had accompanied the prosecutrix and her mother and brother firstly to Berthin Hospital where he contacted the doctor who informed him that since there is no lady doctor at Berthin, the prosecutrix should be taken to district Hospital, Bilaspur and on the next day he alongwith Tripta Devi, and her mother went to District Hospital where lady doctor advised them to go to police first and register the case. At such time Kumari Tripta Devi and her mother went to Police Post and lodged the report but this witness did not accompany them and he remained in the hospital. After some time the prosecutrix accompanied by one A.S.I, and her mother came to the hospital and this witness returned back. In his cross examination he admitted that he appeared as a witness in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. PC. between Sukh Ram and Ram Saran because possession had been delivered in his presence. Hp had denied the suggestion of defence that he has got 7-8 cases instituted against Ram Saran, father of the appellant, in the last 2-3 years, he voluntarily stated that he never got any complaint lodged against Ram Saran in the police. PC. between Sukh Ram and Ram Saran because possession had been delivered in his presence. Hp had denied the suggestion of defence that he has got 7-8 cases instituted against Ram Saran, father of the appellant, in the last 2-3 years, he voluntarily stated that he never got any complaint lodged against Ram Saran in the police. From the tenor of the cross examination of the witnesses, made on behalf of the appellant, it appears that he has tried to make out a case that the present case is the result of his enmity with Pradhan PW-12, who has got him involved therein. No defence was led on behalf of the appellant. 5. Shri Vijay Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted:- (a) That the evidence on record, particularly that of PW- 1,2,3,5,6 and 12 have not been properly appreciated by the court below and thus it has fallen into error in convicting and sentencing the appellant; (b) eye witness Asha has not been produced and thus adverse inference should be drawn for her non-production; (c) There are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the benefit thereof needs to be given to the appellant; (d) there is no evidence of rape having been committed by the appellant on the person of PW-1 Kumari Tripta Devi. 6. In support of his first and third submission Shri Thakur has referred to the statements recorded by the trial court and has submitted that in the face of the evidence, the findings of conviction against the appellant arc not sustainable. According to him, the appellant is entitled to acquittal simply on the statements of PWs.1,2 and 12. He laid great emphasise on the fact that prosecutrix stated that she had not gone to Barthin Hospital for examination by PW-6 whereas PW-12 Onkar Singh Pradhan has stated that he accompanied by prosecutrix, her mother and her brother had gone to Barthin Hospital for medical examination where doctor informed them that they should go to hospital at Bilaspur for examination of the prosecutrix and on next day this witness alongwith the prosecutrix and her mother went to hospital at Bilaspur. In this context, Shri Vijay Thakur further pointed out that PW-1 has stated in her cross examination that in the evening she went to Berthin Hospital with Onkar Singh Pradhan and doctor had seen the injuries on her back and also examined her for 30 minutes, who had noted down her fathers name as well as her complete address and injuries on her person. Similarly, he pointed out that PW-1 has denied the suggestion of defence that they went to hospital at Bilaspur first and then to Police Post. This witness has gone on record to say that they went to Police Chowki first and thus, according to Shri Vijay Thakur, the statement of this witness, when read in conjunction with PWs 6 and 12, they contradict each other in material facts and thus appellant is entitled to acquittal. 7. No doubt, there is some contradiction in the statements of these 3 witnesses on this aspect of the case as detailed hereinabove but that by itself would not be a ground for the appellant to claim acquittal in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this behalf we do not have to loose the site of the fact that so far the commission of offence by the appellant is concerned, it is not wiped out and the contradictions are not of such a nature which may have the effect of completely erasing the evidence of the prosecutrix jj which in the opinion of this court has sufficiently brought home the guilt against the appellant. 8. In the context of first two submissions of Shri Vijay Thakur, it may not be out of place to point out here that by getting herself branded as an unmarried girl, who has been raped, the prosecutrix is putting herself to disrepute in the society. Similarly she would not try to save the real culprit guilty of commission of offence who has violated her chastity and simply at the instance of PW-12 she would not rope-in the appellant. Admittedly, no enmity has been shown between the appellant on one side and the prosecutrix as well as other members of her family on the other. Similarly she would not try to save the real culprit guilty of commission of offence who has violated her chastity and simply at the instance of PW-12 she would not rope-in the appellant. Admittedly, no enmity has been shown between the appellant on one side and the prosecutrix as well as other members of her family on the other. In this view of the matter there docs not appeal to be any justifiable cause for her to have falsely implicated the appellant for the offence of committing rape upon her and further having criminally intimidated her by threatening with injury to her person in case she cause any alarm. The statement made by the prosecutrix PW-1, her mother PW-2 and her Bhabhi are natural and spontaneous which has supported the prosecution case in its material particulars and such statements inspire confidence. In this view of the matter the so called contradictions as well as omissions by referring to which an attempt was made by Shri Vijay Thakur to ask for acquittal, are not of such a nature which when read with the entire evidence would negative the case of the prosecution. In this view of the matter the submissions made by Shri Vijay Thakur on his first and third contention arc hereby negatived. 9. So far 2nd contention is concerned, suffice it to say that it is not the quantity that would matter, but it is the quality of evidence that is material. Thus, mere non examination of Asha, who is stated to have accompanied her mother PW-2 for locating the prosecutrix and who had seen the appellant fleeing the place of occurrence on seeing both of them would not, in any manner, improve the case of the appellant, therefore, the second submission made on behalf of the appellant must fail. 10. Now coming to the last submission made by Shri Vijay Thakur that there is no evidence of rape in the present case, therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. In this behalf it may be appropriate to mention that the statement of PW-2 prima facie establishes the commission of the forcible act against the wishes of the prosecutrix and the doctor PW-5 having not ruled out the possibility of commission of rape completely negatives the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. In this behalf it may be appropriate to mention that the statement of PW-2 prima facie establishes the commission of the forcible act against the wishes of the prosecutrix and the doctor PW-5 having not ruled out the possibility of commission of rape completely negatives the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, from whatever angle the case may be examined the fact remains that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt and the appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial court. 11. In the context and background of this case it may be appropriate to mention that the prosecutrix, at the time of commission of offence, was an unmarried young girl of less than 18 years, who six months prior to her examination in the court (she was examined in court on 4-3 -1996), was married, and her mother while appearing as PW-2 has stated that this occurrence has not been disclosed to the in-laws of Kumari Tripta Devi. The trauma of the mother of the prosecutrix can be better imagined than explained in the present case. Possibility of her in-laws not accepting the prosecutrix after coming to know of the incidence is not completely ruled out. In these circumstances also it would be difficult to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that his client has been falsely implicated. 12. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.