Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant suffered conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on being tried by Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1989 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years on that count. 2. The facts of the case are tell a tale. While Mina Kumari, the prosecutrix, was alone in her house in the month of Asharh of the year 1988, the appellant sneaked in her house and asked to accompany him to his house for work. Considering his version to be true, it was alleged that when she went to the house of the appellant, firstly he allured her for sexual intercourse. However, when she did not concur to the proposal of the appellant, she being virgin, the appellant wielding dagger coercing her, violated her person. It was alleged that she was vanished even in successive nights and after she expressed her apprehension of getting conceived, he assured her for miscarriage. Even when wife of the appellant came to her house, the appellant, it is alleged continued to commit sexual intercourse on her taking her, in the field and with these narrations of the prosecutrix which she rendered after four months of the incident, a police case was registered at Katihar police station and investigation commenced. During pendency of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the witnesses got the prosecutrix clinically examined by a doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the court and the appellant being committed to the Court of Sessions was put on trial. At trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and the trial Court placing implicit reliance on the testimony of them, rendered verdict of guilt, convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 3. Now adverting to the evidences placed on the record on behalf of the State, one would find Mina Kumari PW 2, the prosecutrix narrating before the court about appellant taking her to his house in the night of incident on the pretext of some work and despite her reluctance to accompany him, he took her to his house and also ravished her. When she wanted to raise alarm, she was threatened of dire consequences. When she wanted to raise alarm, she was threatened of dire consequences. After her parents came to house she stated to have narrated her woes to them when a painchaity was convened at the instance of her father, as she had conceived and was carrying pregnancy for four months. Andu Sharma PW 1 stated to have been informed by his daughter about the appellant having committed sexual assault on her. A Panchaity was convened when it was resolved that the appellant would execute a deed of sale for land in favour of father of the prosecutrix. However, the resolution adopted by the panchaity was not accepted to the father of the appellant. The evidence of Karmi Devi PW 3 at trial was that she was informed by the prosecutrix about sexual assault committed by the appellant on her. Md. Muslim PW 5 was Investigating Officer of the case who stated to have got the prosecutrix examined by the doctor and taken various steps in the process of investigation. PW 6 Maheshwar Singh was a formal witness and there is nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. Dr. Laxmi Sen PW 4 stated to have clinically examined the prosecutrix who estimated her to be of 16 to 17 years of age. Though no mark of injury was found on her person. Interna] examination disclosed hymen old torn, vaginal canal loose which suggested that she was used to sexual intercourse since long. The prosecutrix in estimation of the doctor was carrying pregnancy of 16 weeks. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State to bring home charges against the appellant. 4. The finding recorded by the trial Court was impeached by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on variety of reasonings and it is sought to be urged that since prosecutrix had not taken recourse to the public authority, before lapses of four months, the entire prosecution case has to be discarded on this count alone. The contentions were raised that considering estimation of age of the prosecutrix by the doctor, she being major was free to exercise her discretion and once this logic is accepted that she gave her accompany to the appellant on her own volition, the alleged act committed by the appellant would not attract the mischief of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. My attention has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to some narrations made by Andu Sharma PW 1, father of the prosecutrix and would urge that as the deed of sale was not executed by appellant in terms of the panchaity and father of the appellant was assaulted for betrayal, a case had been instituted by him and it is not unlikely that the prosecution was launched by the prosecutrix on getting offended by the action of Jugal Sharma, father of the appellant. 5. The facts of the prosecution case is tell a tale. The evidence of the prosecutrix was reiteration of her early version which she rendered before the police. Rightly in such cases no ocular witness can be expected to lend corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix and reliance has to be placed on attending circumstances of the case. The prosecutrix was alone in the night in her house when her parents were out of the house and as is alleged the appellant taking advantage of loneliness of the prosecutrix in house, sneaked, allured her, took her to his house and coercing her committed sexual assault on her. So a helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion or permissive given, cannot be construed to be consent. Though learned counsel for the State would urge that she being within the age limit 16-17 years, there may be variation of two years, in her age and she may be presumed to be 15 years also, but rightly such conclusion cannot be drawn as such variations were possible either side. Apart from the evidence of prosecutrix, evidence of her father and also that of Karmi Devi had also lent assurance and offered ample corroboration to her testimony. Though learned counsel urged that the prosecutrix in view of her long association with appellant was a consenting party, it is no defence that the woman consented after the act, as consent; as a defence to an allegation of rape requires voluntary participation. Though learned counsel urged that the prosecutrix in view of her long association with appellant was a consenting party, it is no defence that the woman consented after the act, as consent; as a defence to an allegation of rape requires voluntary participation. This fact cannot be lost sight of that in the night of incident the prosecutrix was taken to the house of the appellant on allurement where she was ravished on coercion and there cannot be any legitimate inference, if her evidence is taken to be true on its face value that she permitted appellant to enjoy her on her own volition and as such she was a consenting party. The finding of the doctor has lent assurance to her testimony about she carrying pregnancy after she conceived on getting bodily contact with the appellant. True it is that the prosecutrix took recourse to public authority not before lapse of four months, however, the structure of society where one to live, cannot be lost sight of, as it is not unlikely that the victims of rape or even parents, are ashamed to take recourse to public authority due to social stigma which such incidents usually carry with them. A panchaity was convened so that the public authority is not taken recourse to and only when it had failed, the prosecution was launched, and there appears to be nothing unusual for delay in launching the prosecution against the appellant. It is a well proved case in which the finding recorded by the trial Court is not open to question and finding as such both in respect of the conviction and sentence is upheld. The appeal accordingly fails. Bail bond of the appellant is cancelled. The trial Court shall take all coercive steps to take the appellant in custody.