Judgment Arun Madan, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The matter has been examined with the assistance of Mr. S. S. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out the relevant documents from the perusal of which, it is apparent that accused Lakha alias Lakshnii Chand had committed sexual intercourse with Smt. Anokh Bai wife of Devilal on the fateful day i.e. 22-5-1993 against her consent. The report to this effect was lodged by prosecutrix Smt. Anokh Bai herself with P.S, Chechat, District Kota on 22-5-1993 itself at about 11.30 p.m. vide Exh. P 1. On the basis of her statement the FIR vide Exh. P2 was registered with P.S. Chechat, Kota for the offence punishable under Section 456 and Section 376, IPC. The medical examination of prosecutrix-Smt. Anokh Bai was conducted vide Exh. P-3 by Dr. Ranjana Gupta and four injuries were found on her person and the clothes of the prosecutrix which she was wearing at the time of occurrence were sealed and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for Pathological Examination. However, the report from the FSL has not come on the record. The accused-appellant Lakha was arrested on the following day of occurrence i.e. on 23-5-1993 vide Exh. P-8 by the Investigating Police. 2. Theprosecutrix in her statement recorded by the trial Court has assigned positive role to accused Lakha and I find that her version is fully corroborated by the independent witnesses namely; Devilal PW-3 and Gordhan PW-4 apart form the medical evidence from which it is apparent that the prosecutrix had shown good deal of resistance before she was subjected to intercourse by the accused. The prosecutrix is a married lady having two children. Her husband was away to attend to his duties and was not at home and she was alone at the time when the occurrence took place. 3. Prima facie, I am fully convinced on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the record as regards the commission of offence by accused-Lakha punishable under Section 456/376, IPC. 4. I don’t find any justification for taking contrary view of the matter and this is a fit case in which the appellant does not deserve any benefit of doubt. 4. I don’t find any justification for taking contrary view of the matter and this is a fit case in which the appellant does not deserve any benefit of doubt. The law is so well settled by the Ap Exhibit Court that the statement of the prosecutrix by itself is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused if the same is trustworthy. The time when the offence is committed, the accused had taken all possible precautions to see that no other person was present in the house except the prosecutrix. Moreover, the offence of rape has been committed on a married lady and there is no reason as to why her statement should be disbelieved nor any satisfactory explanation has been furnished as to why the prosecutrix would have falsely implicate the appellant at the risk of her own family reputation at stake particularly being a married lady leading a normal marital life with her husband. The learned trial Court has recorded well reasoned findings sustaining the conviction of the accused-appellant for offence punishable under Section 456/376, IPC. 5. Asa result of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. The impugned order dated 16-12-1998 passed by learned Special Judge, Atrocities on Women, Kota in Case No. 2 16/97 convicting the accused-appellant and sentencing him to undergo five years’ R.I. for commission of offence punishable under Section 376, IPC with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years’ S.I. and to undergo similar sentence under Section 450, IPC and both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently, is upheld. The summoned record be sent back to the concerned trial Court immediately.