JUDGMENT : C.R. Pal, J. - In this appeal the appellant assails the order of conviction and sentence dated 12.5.1995 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela in S.T. Case No. 203/2 of 1995 convicting the appellant under Sections 342 and 376, I.P.C. and sentencing him under Section 342 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 376 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution case is that on 15.6.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. while the victim girl (P.W.1) was going on the village road in search of her brother-in-law (sister's husband) the appellant who was standing in front of his house on the road called her to take liquor (Handia). When the victim girl declined to oblige him, the appellant forcibly dragged her inside his house and closing the same from inside forcibly made her lie down and putting a hand on her mouth to prevent her from shouting undressed her with the other hand. The P.W.1 in order to get rid of the clutches of the appellant bit the right hand of the appellant at which the appellant released the P.W.1 but again he made the victim girl forcibly lie down and committed sexual intercourse with her. After the occurrence, the victim returned to her house and intimated about the same to her sister. Her father was not present in the house on that day. Next day on his return he was informed about the occurrence and with him the victim girl came to Jalda Police outpost and orally reported about the occurrence. Her oral report was reduced to writing by the S.I. (P.W. 7) who immediately sent the said report to Raghunathpali P.S. where on receiving the report a case was registered under Sections 342 and 376, I.P.C. and the P.W.7 was directed to take up investigation. In course of investigation the appellant was arrested. The victim girl as well as the appellant were also medically examined and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. Ultimately on commitment, the case came to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela for trial where the appellant stood charged for the offences under Sections 342 and 376, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Ultimately on commitment, the case came to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Rourkela for trial where the appellant stood charged for the offences under Sections 342 and 376, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case of the appellant is a complete denial of the allegations levelled against him. 3. In order to establish the case against the appellant the prosecution examined nine witnesses including the victim girl, her father, sister, the doctors who examined the victim and the appellant and the Investigating Officers. Prosecution also exhibited the documents such as the F.I.R., seizure list and medical examination reports besides exhibiting the material objects like the Chadi (M.O.I) frock (M.O.II) of the victim girl and the Lungi (M.O.III), half-pant (M.O. IV) and the underwear (M.O.V.) of the appellant. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge after hearing both the sides relying mainly on the evidence of the victim girl and the medical officers convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated earlier. 4. Since the counsel Shri S.B. Das engaged by the appellant through the Legal Aid and Advice Board to conduct the appeal for the appellant did not turn up. I perused the impugned judgment, exhibits and the depositions of the witnesses and on hearing the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, delivered this judgment. 5. The appellant in his memorandum of appeal assails the order of conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial Court failed to appreciate properly the evidence adduced by the witnesses and arrived at erroneous conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Assistant Session Judge has not committed any illegality or impropriety in appreciating the evidence adduced by the witnesses and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge is just and legal. In the above context, it is noticed that the alleged incident occurred on 15.6.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at Jalda Outpost. Sessions Judge is just and legal. In the above context, it is noticed that the alleged incident occurred on 15.6.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged on the next day at Jalda Outpost. This delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained by the P.W.1 the victim lady, who deposed that as her father was not present in the house, the information could not be lodged on the date of occurrence and on arrival of her father on the next day she went to the Outpost with her father and orally reported about the occurrence. There is nothing in the evidence to discard the explanation offered by the prosecution through the mouth of P.W.1 about the delay in lodging the F.I.R. From the evidence of P.W.1. it appears that the age of the victim girl was about 14 year at the time of the alleged occurrence as stated by her and recorded in the heading of deposition. From the evidence of the Radiologist, it appears that the age of the victim girl was between 14 to 16 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. Nothing has been brought out from P.W.1 in her cross-examination to attribute any motive for implicating the appellant falsely with the alleged occurrence involving herself in such an occurrence putting herself in shameful situation jeopardising her own dignity. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 has also been corroborated by the evidence of the medical officer P.W.8 who examined the appellant on 16.6.1994 on police requisition. From his evidence and from the injury report Ext.4 submitted by him, it appears that he noticed a biting abrasion of two rows 1" in length on the right arm of the appellant. This corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 who has deposed that in order to escape from the cultches of the appellant, she bit the right hand of the appellant. The evidence of P.W.8 further reveals that there were nail marks on the root of the neck of the appellant. According to the P.W.8, the appellant might have sustained the injuries within 36 hours prior to his examination. Thus, the evidence of P.W.8 regarding the age of the injuries also supports the version of the P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.8 further reveals that there were nail marks on the root of the neck of the appellant. According to the P.W.8, the appellant might have sustained the injuries within 36 hours prior to his examination. Thus, the evidence of P.W.8 regarding the age of the injuries also supports the version of the P.W.1. After the occurrence the victim girl returned to her house and narrated about the incident to her sister P.W.2 P.W.2 has also deposed that her sister P.W.1 on the date of occurrence returned home and narrated about the sexual assault on her committed by the appellant. The P.W.1 in her statement has categorically stated that there was penetration. Nothing has been brought out from her in cross-examination to doubt the veracity of the P.W.1 about the same. The injury found on the arm of the appellant clearly shows that the P.W.1 was not a consenting party. Therefore, the appreciation of the evidence as has been done by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in finding the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 342 and 376, I.P.C. cannot be said to be improper. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, I do not find that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has committed any illegality or impropriety in appreciating the evidence and in finding the appellant guilty for the offences charged. 6. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of conviction and sentences passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge against the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed