D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 27-2-1996 recorded by the Court of the Assistant sessions Judge, Kovur, Nellore District in s. C. No. 295 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 376ipc. ( 2 ) SINCE the Counsel appearing for the accused-respondent Sri S. Bharat Kumar continuously absented and since there was no assistance, this Court appointed Sri kondasani Mallikarjuna Rao, who is an efficient Advocate and a retired judicial officer, as the Counsel to defend the accused and his remuneration shall be paid by the a. P. State Legal Services Authority, hyderabad, as per the rules. . ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15-1-1995 at about 18. 00 hours when p. W. 1 was returning from the fields with a heap of grass, and when she reached the field of Medepalli Venkatasubbaiah, the accused pushed her down and when she raised cheek, kept his towel in her mouth and forcibly committed the sexual assault. The accused had also bitten on the cheek of P. W. 1 and when the persons working in the nearby fields rushed to the spot, the accused ran away. Then P. W. 1 went to her house and informed the same to her parents. On the next day at 10. 30 hours, P. W. 1 and her mother went to the Police Station and reported the matter to the police and the police machinery was set into motion. ( 4 ) THE case of the accused is of total denial. ( 5 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-10 and M. Os. 1 to 10 were also marked. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined and also no document was marked. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the victim. ( 5 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-10 and M. Os. 1 to 10 were also marked. On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined and also no document was marked. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the victim. She deposed that while she was returning with a heap of grass and while coming by the side of a turmeric field of Medepalli venkatasubbaih, accused came in front of her and pushed her down along with heap of grass; that she raised alarm; that accused kept his hand across her mouth and later kept his towel in her mouth and bit her left cheek and committed the rape; that she informed the incident to medepalli Prasad and Subbrayudu; that she informed the incident to her father and younger sister; that in the meantime her mother and elder sister came there from the field; that at the time of commission of offence, she was not married and she attained puberty; that later she got drafted a report and presented to the police under Ex. P-1. ( 7 ) EVEN though she was cross-examined at length, nothing useful could be elicited by the defence in order to discredit her testimony. ( 8 ) P. W. 2 is the younger sister of P. W. 1. She deposed that P. W. 1 came to the house at about 6. 30 p. m. , weeping; that she questioned why she was weeping, for which she (P. W. 1) replied that the accused caught hold of her and committed rape; that at that time she and her father were there and later their mother and eldest sister came; that P. W. 1 went to police station and gave report. ( 9 ) SHE was also cross-examined, but no useful information could be elicited by the defence. ( 10 ) P. WS. 3 and 4 who are the parents of p. W. 1 and P. W. 5, the brother of P. W. 1 also deposed in the same lines as that of P. W. 2. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 is the Mediator of seizure of m. Os. 5 to 7 under Ex. P-2 mahazar. ( 12 ) P. W. 7 is the doctor who examined p. W. 1 and issued her final opinion under ex. P-6. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 is the Mediator of seizure of m. Os. 5 to 7 under Ex. P-2 mahazar. ( 12 ) P. W. 7 is the doctor who examined p. W. 1 and issued her final opinion under ex. P-6. She opinion basing on the F. S. L. report ex. P-5, that there was sexual intercourse of p. W. 1 and issued Ex. P-4 wound certificate. She further opined that the injury No. 1 in ex. P-4 would certificate i. e. , abrasion of l/4 th x l/4 on the left side of the upper lip, can be caused by blunt object and it also can be possible by biting. ( 13 ) P. W. 10 is the V. A. O. of Gannepalli and he is the mediator of Ex. P-8 Mahazar. He deposed that he along with one Sirajuddin accompanied the C. I. of police to the scene of offence; that the scene of offence is a turmeric garden of Medepalli Venkatesubaiah; that they observed foot prints and damage of the crop, that the C. I. of police seized bangle pieces, shirt buttons and flower; that a mahazar was drafted under Ex. P-8; that m. O. 8 is the bangle pieces, M. O. 9 is the banti puvvu (flower) and M. O. 10 is the white buttons three in number. ( 14 ) FROM the above evidence on record it has to be seen that P. W. 1 categorically deposed the manner in which she was subjected to sexual assault and that she immediately informed the matter to her parents and other family members at about 6. 30 p. m. , and the complaint was given on the next day at about 10. 00 a. m. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the delay is not properly explained and such it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. This submission cannotbe accepted for the reason that due to social obligations and out of feat of defamation in the society and also due to other circumstances and various reasons, the parents of the victim, may not report the matter to the police immediately. The supreme Court in catena of judgments held that the delay in cases under Section 376 IPC shall not vitiate or negate the case of the prosecution. The supreme Court in catena of judgments held that the delay in cases under Section 376 IPC shall not vitiate or negate the case of the prosecution. ( 15 ) IT has to be seen that immediately after the report, the investigating agency visited the scene of offence and sized M. Os. 8 to 10 under Ex. P-8 mahazar in the presence of mediators. Further another important piece of evidence is Ex. P-2, where under M. Os. 5 to7 were sized. M. O. 6 is the shirt of the accused found with three buttons missing and those three buttons are found at the scene of offence and they were seized under M. O. 10 in Ex. P-8 seizure mahazar in the presence of mediators. ( 16 ) ONE of the reasons for the trial Judge to order acquittal is that if really the rape was committed in the termoric field. , which is admittedly wet, the cloths of P. W. 1 should have been tainted with mud and since there are no stains of mud on the cloths of P. W. 1, the version of P. W. 1 cannotbe believed. This reasoning cannot be accepted. In this connection it is necessary to look into the evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 in unequivocal terms stated that while she was bringing heap of grass, she was forcibly thrown along with the heap of grass and thereafter, the accused committed the offence. In such a case there is possibility of her falling on the grass and also possibility of not touching the ground. This ground for ordering acquittal in my view is flimsy and merits for reversal. Further as per Ex. P-8 report, it has to be seen that there are symptoms of trampling in the field. This indicates that there was some scrambleatsceneofoffence,and if visualized keeping in view the other circumstances and evidence on record, suggests that there was some force or violence against P. W. 1. ( 17 ) THE doctor P. W. 7 also supports the case of the prosecution. Basing on Ex. P-5 f. S. L. report she opined that the was sexual intercourse of P. W. 1. Further the doctor stated that injury No. 1 i. e. , injury on the upper lip of the victim P. W. 1 can be caused by a blunt object and also possible by biting. Basing on Ex. P-5 f. S. L. report she opined that the was sexual intercourse of P. W. 1. Further the doctor stated that injury No. 1 i. e. , injury on the upper lip of the victim P. W. 1 can be caused by a blunt object and also possible by biting. Of course P. W. 1 stated in Ex. P-1 complaint that the accused had bitten her cheek. Just because there is no injury found on the cheek, that does not mean that the evidence of P. W. 1 with regard to biting on her cheek can be rejected. A village girl like P. W. 1 in a vernacular language narrated that the accused had bitten her cheek and however the medical evidence shows that she received injury on her left side of the upper lip. From this it can be inferred that what P. W. 1 meant was that the accused had bitten on her cheek/ upper lip at the time of commission of offence. Since there was no injury on the cheek and only on the left side upper lip, it cannot be said that the accused had not bitten her at all or that the injury No. 1 was received by p. W. 1 with a blunt object. Weighing the circumstances in right perspective, the only inference that can be drawn is that the injury was caused only by biting. ( 18 ) A perusal of Ex. P-5 F. S. L. report reveals that blood was detected on item Nos. 2,3 and 13 i. e. , green cotton petticoat, yellow designed silkish long skirt and reddish fluid. It is further stated that semen detected in item nos. 2 and 14 i. e. , green cotton petticoat and whitish fluid, is human, but however, the blood group could not be detected. ( 19 ) P. W. 8 is the doctor who collected the semen (i. e. , item No. 14 in the F. S. L. report) from the accused and sent the same of F. S. L. report and as noted above, the semen was found to be human. ( 20 ) SO the evidence of the doctor P. W. 7 and Ex. P-8 F. S. L. report indicates that sexual intercourse was committed by the accused on P. W. 1. ( 20 ) SO the evidence of the doctor P. W. 7 and Ex. P-8 F. S. L. report indicates that sexual intercourse was committed by the accused on P. W. 1. ( 21 ) THE question now would be whether there was any consent by P. W. 1. In this context it has to be noted that at the scene of offence, broken bangles, three shirt buttons etc. were found and the scene of offence, which is a termerric crop, was damaged by trampling. Further immediately after the incident, she informed to her parents and to all the family members. All these factors, indicate that there was no consent from P. W. 1 and it was done against her will. ( 22 ) ONE of the reasons for the Court below to order acquittal is that since no external injuries were found on the person of P. W. 1, it is not safe to believe the version of P. W. 1 cannot agree with this reasoning. It is not always necessary that there must be some external injuries either on the body of the victim or on her private parts and I am of the view that inflicting injuries, depends upon the way in which the accused behaved. As per the evidence of P. W. 1, she was forcibly pushed down and a cloth was gauged into her mouth and rape was committed. She never deposed that there was some physical assault on her body. When it is not her case that the accused caused any injuries, excepting biting on her cheek, the observations made by the trial Court cannot be accepted. ( 23 ) THE other ground for the trial Court to order acquittal is that since P. W. 1 was married, it is difficult to come to any conclusion that she was subjected to rape. This reasoning also cannot be accepted for the reason that at the time of committing offence, she was unmarried and she attained puberty and to this effect she also deposed in her evidence. From this appears that she was married after the offence and before giving the evidence in the Court. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial Court that it is difficult to come to any conclusion, since P. W. 1 was married, is factually incorrect and in my opinion the trial Court ought not to have given such finding. From this appears that she was married after the offence and before giving the evidence in the Court. Therefore, the reasoning of the trial Court that it is difficult to come to any conclusion, since P. W. 1 was married, is factually incorrect and in my opinion the trial Court ought not to have given such finding. ( 24 ) NEXTLY the trial Court also taking into consideration the earlier disputes between the parties for ordering acquittal. Earlier disputes can be taken into account, when there is uncorroborated evidence on record or that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But in the present case, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt basing on both oral and documentary evidence on record and as such i cannot agree with the finding given by the trial Court that owing to earlier disputes, the present case was foisted. ( 25 ) FOR the above reasons, I set aside the impugned judgment and convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 ipc. ( 26 ) COMING to the sentence that has to be imposed, it has to be noted that the accused is a rustic village eking out his livelyhood by doing some agricultural cooli work and at the time of committing offence, he was aged about 35 years, and presently may be more than 40 years having children. ( 27 ) CONSIDERING the above facts, I sentence the accused to suffer R. I. for five years. ( 28 ) IT is need less to mention that the sentence undergone, if any, by the accused during trial or investigation shall be given set off. ( 29 ) THE trial Court shall issue warrant and commit the accused to prison to undergo the sentence. ( 30 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed.