JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The appellant has been convicted u/s 376, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for further period of six months. 2. The victim, a married lady, was engaged for collecting cashewnuts. On 26.4.1990, the date of occurrence, she along with others had gone for collecting cashew-nuts. The accused came stealthily from behind and thereafter committed rape on the victim. The victim disclosed about the incident to other labourers and subsequently after returning home, she narrated the incident before her husband who went to the Outpost. On the basis of the statement of the husband, initially Station Diary Entry No.347 dated 27.4.1990 was made which was subsequently treated as formal F.I.R. on 28.4.1990. Thereafter the victim and the accused were examined by doctors. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. 3. The plea of the accused was one of denial. 4. The victim was examined as P.W.I. P.W. 2, another labourer, who had gone for collecting cashew-nuts, also saw the occurrence after hearing the shoutings of the victim. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 are post-occurrence witnesses. P.W. 5 is the husband of the victim. P.W. 6 is a formal witness. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the Investigation Officers. P.W. 10 is the doctor who examined the victim whereas P.W. 11 is the doctor who examined the accused. Relying upon the evidence of the victim as corroborated by the evidence of the eye-witness, P.W. 2, and the post-occurrence witnesses, the trial court has convicted the appellant u/s 376, Indian Penal Code. It may be stated here that the accused was alternatively charged u/s 497. Indian Penal Code, and since she was convicted u/s 376, Indian Penal Code, the question of commission of offence u/s 497 did not arise and was not considered. 5. In this appeal, it is contended that the examination of the victim did not reveal any injury on the private part. It is also contended that the doctor did not find any dead sperms, nor any other tell-tale sign of sexual intercourse and as such the evidence of the prosecution should be discarded. 5. In this appeal, it is contended that the examination of the victim did not reveal any injury on the private part. It is also contended that the doctor did not find any dead sperms, nor any other tell-tale sign of sexual intercourse and as such the evidence of the prosecution should be discarded. It is also contended that there was delay in lodging F.I.R. and the so-called Station Diary Entry having not been produced, it should be held that a false case had been subsequently foisted. In the alternative, it is contended that even assuming that there was sexual intercourse, it should be held that there was consent. 6. Coming to the question as to delay in lodging the F.I.R., it is found that the F.I.R. was registered on 28.4.1990. It had been stated by the officer-in-charge that on the basis of the statement of the husband at the Outpost, initially Station Diary Entry had been made. Though the Station Diary Entry itself had not been produced, in the F.I.R. endorsement has been made regarding S.D.E. No. 347 dated 27.4.1990. The written report which has been subsequently treated as F.I.R. is also dated 27.4.1990. In view of the statement of the official witness which is corroborated by the fact that there is as endorsement on the body of the F.I.R. regarding Station Diary Entry, I am inclined to hold that, in fact, F.I.R. had been lodged on 27.4.1990. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there is any undue delay in lodging the F.I.R. more so, in view of the evidence of P.W. 6, who has said that a Panchayati had been convened. 7. P.W. 10, the doctor, examined the victim two days after the occurrence. He did not find any injury on the private part of the victim, but found abrasions on the back portion, elbow, knew and right leg of the victim. These injuries on other parts of the body corroborate the statement of the victim. Since the victim was a married lady, absence of injury on the private part is not very significant. Since the victim was examined two days after the occurrence, absence of dead sperms and absence of matted hair are also not very significant matters and cannot outweigh the cogent evidence of the victim herself which gets ample corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 2. Since the victim was examined two days after the occurrence, absence of dead sperms and absence of matted hair are also not very significant matters and cannot outweigh the cogent evidence of the victim herself which gets ample corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 2. The materials on record do not indicate existence of consent on the part of the victim. As such, I do not find any reason to differ from the conclusion of the trial court regarding the culpability of the offender. 8. Though the accused had initially been released on bail during trial, after conviction, he is continuing in jail custody. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the order of conviction, I consider it proper to reduce the substantive imprisonment to Seven Years R.I. and the fine to Rs. 500/-. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed subject to modification of sentence. The substantive sentence is reduced to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, the appellant is liable to undergo further R.I. for 6 months. Final Result : Dismissed