Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. This jail appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against the Judgment and order dated 26th of May, 1993 passed by the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 1 of 1993 convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 442 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and six months respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim lady Sonamuni Marandi (P.W. 4) in her fardbeyan dated 29.3.1992 recorded by S.I. Amod Narayan Singh of Shikaripara P.S. (P.W. 8) alleged that on Friday, a day before yesterday, she was returning from Shikaripara Hatia at about 7.00 p.m. When she reached near the school building of her village, accused Jagai Soran caught hold of her and dragged her inside the school. She tried to raise hulla but he put his napkin into her mouth. The accused confined the victim lady inside the school for whole night and committed rape forcibly on her twice. In the morning, her husband along with some villagers arrived at the school building, but the accused escaped. She narrated the occurrence to her husband and other villagers assembled there. A village panchayati was called but the accused did not turn up. Thereafter, the village pradhan directed to report the matter to the police and as such on 29.3.1992 on the basis of her fardbeyan, the case was registered. After commitment, the trial proceeded in the Court below. During the investigation, the I.O. sent the victim girl for medical examination and obtained injury report. 3. The case of the defence is that due to village politics, he has been falsely implicated in this case. No occurrence, as alleged, took place. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W. 4 (Sonarauni Marandi) is the victim lady. The Doctor has estimated her age as 19 years and the Court has assessed her age about 21 years. She is a married woman. She stated that while she was returning from Hatia on Friday (27.3.1992) in the evening, the accused caught hold of her near the school building and dragged her inside the school and forcibly committed rape on her twice. She is a married woman. She stated that while she was returning from Hatia on Friday (27.3.1992) in the evening, the accused caught hold of her near the school building and dragged her inside the school and forcibly committed rape on her twice. She stated that she sustained some external injuries on her person due to offering some resistance at the time of commission of rape on her. It is further stated that in the morning, her husband came to the school along with some villagers to whom she narrated the occurrence. 5. In the meantime, the accused fled away. Her husband and villagers had seen the accused fleeing away from the school building. She was examined by the Doctor and she has handed over her petticoat to the I.O. She stated that before her medical examination, she had taken both and also washed away her petticoat. 6. P.W. 6 (Mery Thelrna Don) is the lady Doctor. She examined the Victim lady on 30.3.1993 and found (i) abrasion 1" x 1/2 over right leg below knee, (ii) abrasion 1" x 1/6" in the middle of the neck and (iii) abrasion multiple 3" x 2" over the dorsum right forearm below elbow. In the opinion of the Doctor, these injuries were possible while making flat on the ground. This part of the evidence of the Doctor corroborates the evidence of the victim lady, who stated that she had sustained some injuries when she was forcibly committed rape and she offered resistance. The lady Doctor found that there was sign of old rupture of the hymen and there was no injury on her private part. On pathological examination was not found. She could not give the definite opinion whether rape was committed on her or not. As stated above, she has examined the lady after three days of the occurrence and during this period as per the evidence of victim lady (P.W. 4) she has taken bath, so it was natural that lady Doctor might not have found any sign of rape on her private part and presence of spermatozoa in her swab. Since the lady was married, hence it was natural that hymen had old ruptured. 7. P.W. 8 (B.N. Sinha) is the I.O. of the case, who recorded the fardbeyan of the victim lady marked Ext. 2. Since the lady was married, hence it was natural that hymen had old ruptured. 7. P.W. 8 (B.N. Sinha) is the I.O. of the case, who recorded the fardbeyan of the victim lady marked Ext. 2. During the investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, which is a local school. The windows and rooms of the school were opened. No other mark of violence, etc. was found inside the room of the school. 8. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution including P.W. 1 (Ram Kisto Hembrom), P.W. 2 (Kesho Paharia), P.W. 3 (Kisto Hembrom) and P.W. 5 (Chandu Soren), the husband of the victim lady who all are hearsay witnesses. They have arrived at the P.O. in search of the victim lady in the morning and when they reached near the school, they saw the accused fleeing away from the school. The victim lady told them about the commission of rape committed on her by the accused. As such, the evidence of these witnesses have corroborated the evidence of the prosecutrix before whom she had narrated about the occurrence at the earliest and their evidence further corroborate that they had seen the accused fleeing away from the school building. 9. The trial Court after considering these evidence and relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix and the lady Doctor has come to the finding that the accused has committed rape on the victim lady on the alleged date of occurrence in the night against her will. In course of commission of rape, the lady offered resistance due to which she sustained some injuries including three abrasions as found by the lady Doctor (P.W. 6) 10. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of the victim lady (P.W. 4) on the point of commission of rape on her. The lady Doctor could not give any definite opinion whether rape was committed on her and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. This point has been dealt with by the trial Court in the Judgment (paragraph 7). 11. From the evidence of the Doctor and the I.O., it is clear that the victim lady was examined three days after the occurrence. The victim lady (P.W. 4) stated that she had taken bath before her examination by the lady Doctor. This point has been dealt with by the trial Court in the Judgment (paragraph 7). 11. From the evidence of the Doctor and the I.O., it is clear that the victim lady was examined three days after the occurrence. The victim lady (P.W. 4) stated that she had taken bath before her examination by the lady Doctor. In such circumstances, presence of any sign of injury on her private part or presence of spermatozoa in her swab was not possible. Since she was a married lady the question of finding of fresh rupture of hymen does not arise in this case. The external injury found on the person of the lady is a strong circumstance which supports the contention of the lady that she put resistance at the time of forceful rape committed on her and she had sustained some abrasions on the back of her body. As such, I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned appellants lawyer. In this case, there is no evidence on record that prosecutrix had any personal animosity with the accused or the family members, as such there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused after making false allegation, which is embarrassing for her and in natural course, no lady wants to take risk of instituting a false case of rape because her own prestige is involved in such cases. As such, I do not find merit in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer that victim lady has falsely implicated the accused in this case. 12. Another point that has been raised on behalf of the appellants lawyer is that the lady was aged 19-20 years. She was married. The alleged occurrence took place inside the room of a school. It has come in the evidence that there was no cracks either in the window on the room as such, there was ample scope for the victim lady to flee away from the school where allegedly, she was confined for the whole night. She was a well built lady and she could have raised hulla the night to attract the attention of the neighbours. All the circumstances show that she was a consenting party. The victim lady in her evidence stated that she had tried to raise hulla but the accused put her handkerchief into her mouth and threw her on the ground. She was a well built lady and she could have raised hulla the night to attract the attention of the neighbours. All the circumstances show that she was a consenting party. The victim lady in her evidence stated that she had tried to raise hulla but the accused put her handkerchief into her mouth and threw her on the ground. If she was a consenting party, she would not have received the injuries of abrasions on her person which, according to her, she got these injuries while offering resistance at the time of forcible rape committed on her. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find substance in the contention of the appellants lawyer 13. In the last, the learned appellants lawyer submitted that the appellant is in jail custody since 23.6.1992 when he surrendered before the Court below and since then he has not been enlarged on bail. As such, by now he must have served out his period of sentence. The learned appellants lawyer prayed that the jail authority may be directed to release the petitioner, if not released as yet. 14. Heard the learned A.P.P.. The appellant is in jail custody since 23.6.1992, as such the Jail authority is directed to release him forthwith, if not released as yet or not wanted in any other case. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 16. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate has appeared in this case as amicus curiae and assisted the Court with his all sincerity. He shall be paid fees by the Legal Aid Committee of the Patna High Court, in accordance with law. Let a copy of this Judgment be made over to him.