JUDGMENT Joytosh Banerjee, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.10.91 passed by Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in Sessions Case No. 55/91, through which the accused/appellant was convicted under section 457 and under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default, to suffer R.I. for 2 years more for his conviction under section 376 I.P.C. and the appellant was further sentenced to suffer R.I. for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1500/- in default, to suffer R.I. for 1 year more, on his conviction under section 457 I.P.C. It was further ordered that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. In short, the prosecution case is as follows:- On 27th April, 1991 at night Smt. Jayanti Barman (P.W.1) after taking night meal slept along with her two minor male children in side the bed-room situated on the east bhiti of the house of her husband, Sri Mondal Barman. In that night her husband slept along with their two other minor sons in another bed-room situated in the northern bhiti of the house. After mid-night at about 1 a.m., on 28.4.91, the appellant entered into the bed-room where P.W.1 was sleeping. After opening its door by applying pressure and thereafter he gagged the victim with a napkin and lifted her from her bed and forcibly made her lie on the floor of the bed-room and then he removed the only apparel of the victim that is to say saree and made her stark nude. The accused thereafter inspite of her strong resistance, raped her by forcibly penetrating his panis into her vagina. After the commission of the offence, the accused fled away from the said place of occurrence. The victim at once raised hue and cry and after hearing her cries her husband Mondal Barman (P.W.3) and some of her neighbours came running to the spot. The victim quoted the entire incident of rape committed by the accused upon her. It was alleged that a kerosene lamp was burning inside her bed-room and with the light of the lamp, the victim could recognise and identify the accused. It was further alleged that the victim knew the accused from before the said incident, as he occasionally used to work at her house as a day labourer. It was alleged that a kerosene lamp was burning inside her bed-room and with the light of the lamp, the victim could recognise and identify the accused. It was further alleged that the victim knew the accused from before the said incident, as he occasionally used to work at her house as a day labourer. The victim lodged the F.I.R. in the afternoon of 28.4.91 which was scribed by Sri Haripada Roy (P.W.7). On the basis of the F.I.R. a case, namely, Dinhata P.S. Case No. 144 dated 28.4.91 against the appellant was started. The police on completion of the investigation submitted chargesheet and on the basis of the materials collected by the police, the learned Sessions Judge raised charges under section 457 I.P.C. and under section 376 I.P.C., after the case had been committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate. The defence plea in the instant case is that accused Nripen Barman mortgaged a piece of land measuring 10 cottas to P.W.3, the husband of the victim, on receiving a sum of Rs. 500/- for defraying the medical expenses of his ailing wife. The wife of the accused died and the accused could not repay the amount, and accordingly, he sold that land to the husband of the victim (P.W.3) under a registered kobala for which the consideration money was fixed at Rs. 1,500/-, besides the aforesaid sum of Rs.500/-, which the accused had already received at the item of mortgage of the land as above. The further plea of the defence was that P.W.3 managed to procure the said registered kobala from the accused without paying the said consideration money of Rs. 1,500/- and at that the accused threatened to start a case against P.W.3 for realisation of that unpaid consideration amount from him and on being so threatened the husband of the victim (P.W.3) falsely initiated the case against the accused through his wife in collusion with her. 3. The learned Sessions Judge in the judgment impugned discussed the evidence on record and observed that the victim (P.W.1) gave a vivid description of the alleged incident in her evidence and there was no scope for doubting the veractiy of her oral testimony. 3. The learned Sessions Judge in the judgment impugned discussed the evidence on record and observed that the victim (P.W.1) gave a vivid description of the alleged incident in her evidence and there was no scope for doubting the veractiy of her oral testimony. In coming to his ultimate conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused, the learned Judge further recorded relying on the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused entered into her bed-room by removing the thin wooden bar by putting his fingers through a space in the upper portion of one door leaf of the door of that bed-room. He also relied on the evidence of P.W.1 that at the relevant time of occurrence one of the iron hinges of the door leaf was in broken condition and for that reason, the said door-leaf remained slanting inwardly in that bed-room making a space allowing a gap through which any person could open that door from outside by removing a thin wooden bar with which that door was bolted from inside. The learned Judge also recorded that the evidence of P.W.1 on the point of commission of the offence of rape was unimpeachable. On hearing her cries, the witnesses like P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.12 and P.W.13 and other neighbours came to her house and show her weeping with her hairs in dishevelled condition and wearing a torn saree. The learned Judge also observed that the medical evidence given by P.W.2 Dr. Mihir Kr. Banerjee, who examined the victim two days after the occurrence that is to say on 29.4.91 was not incompatible with the prosecution case and it was quite possible that the victim, a married woman having 4 children between the age of 16 years to 4 years if raped then injuries on her vaginal canal would not occur. Regarding some discrepancies, the learned Sessions Judge observed that those inconsistencies did not go to the root of the case and after observing and concluding thus, the learned Sessions Judge came to a clear finding that prosecution had been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and thereafter convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as noted above. 4. Regarding some discrepancies, the learned Sessions Judge observed that those inconsistencies did not go to the root of the case and after observing and concluding thus, the learned Sessions Judge came to a clear finding that prosecution had been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and thereafter convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as noted above. 4. The only point for our consideration here is whether the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed upon him, can be sustained, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on the basis of the evidence and other relevant circumstances. 5. In the present case, the evidence of P.W.1, Jayanti Barman, the victim is very vital. It is well settled position of law that the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. In the instant case, P.W.1 has described the incident clearly. According to her evidence in the night of incidence she was sleeping in her bed room situated in the east bhiti of their house along with her last two minor sons aged about 6 years and 4 years. Her husband Mondal Barman (P.W.3) was sleeping along with her two other elder sons in a bed-room situated in the north bhiti of the said house in order to guard the stack of dried up tobacco plants kept in the room. She further indicated in the evidence that the room where she was sleeping had a wooden door and that door was fastened with bamboo wall of the room by means of rope and such door had two door leaves and each of those door leaves was fitted with the door by means of two iron hinges. One of such hinges was in broken condition at the relevant point of time. She further disclosed that in the night of incident, before sleeping in that room she bolted the door leaves of the wooden door. But the door leaves of such wooden door which were fitted by means of a thin wooden bar was slanting inwardly in that bedroom making a space allowing any person to open that door from outside by removing a thin wooden bar. But the door leaves of such wooden door which were fitted by means of a thin wooden bar was slanting inwardly in that bedroom making a space allowing any person to open that door from outside by removing a thin wooden bar. She further indicated that she was sleeping with the two small children on a wooden cot inside the bed room, there was a burning lamp. She clarified the matter by adding that she kept that burning lamp on a table inside the bed room as that was necessary for enabling her two small children to attend to nature's call at night with her assistance. She further disclosed that in that night, at about 1 a. m. when she was sleeping in the company of those two sons, accused Nripen Barman pushed one napkin inside her mouth. The accused was known to her from before and so at this she woke up and instantly recognised the accused by the light of the burning lamp. Accused caught hold of her body with his hands lifted her and pulled her down to the floor of the bed room. At that time, she was wearing only one saree and the accused made her totally nude by taking away her only wearing apparel. The witness struggled to resist accused and due to such struggle wearing saree was torn. Thereafter, accused Nripen Barman who was wearing one lungi and shirt, after overpowering the witness, lifted his lungi and forcibly committed rape on her by pushing his penis inside her vagina. After the commission of offence, the accused fled away and when the accused had fled away the witness raised hue and cry and on hearing her cries her husband Mondal Barman rushed to her bed-room and the incident was narrated to him. Some other persons, the neighbours also came there and the incident was narrated to them by the witness. It is also her evidence that after the incident she passed a restless night without sleeping. In the following morning she took her bath in a tubewell which had been installed inside the house and in course of such bath she washed her wearing saree as also her vagina. It is also her evidence that after the incident she passed a restless night without sleeping. In the following morning she took her bath in a tubewell which had been installed inside the house and in course of such bath she washed her wearing saree as also her vagina. It is further disclosed that on the following day of occurrence she had been to Dinhata P.S. accompanied by her husband and three other neighbours wherein she submitted a written complaint stating the fact of commission of forcible rape upon her by the accused. She disclosed further in her evidence that the written complaint was written by a lawyer's clerk of Dinhata Court as per her dictation. The written complaint was read over and explained to her and after she found that the same was correctly recorded as per her statement, she put her signature on such written complaint. She further disclosed that two days after the occurrence of rape she was taken by the police to Dinhata hospital, where she was medically examined by the doctor (P.W.2). There was a prolong cross-examination from the side of the accused wherein it was suggested that there was no such incident as alleged by the witness and the case was started falsely due to a long standing dispute which was going on between her husband and the accused Nripen Barman for realisation of sale proceeds by the accused from her husband for his purchase of a piece of land from the accused. The suggestion to this effect was stoutly denied by the witness. 6. P.W.3, Mondal Barman is the husband of the victim, P.W.4 Laxmi Kanta Barman is the brother of P.W.1, P.W.6 Rakhal Ch. Barman @Akalu Barman, P.W.8 Nripendra Nath Barman, P.W.9 Khijindra Barman@ Khaskhasha Barman, P.W.12 Shakalu Barman, P.W.13 Paresh Barman are the neighbours. All these witnesses deposed that they came to learn all about the incident either from the victim woman or from her husband seen after the incident in the night of such incident or soon thereafter. 7. P.W.2 is Dr. Mihir Kr. Banerjee, who at the relevant point of time was attached to Sub-divisional Hospital, Dinhata. He examined the victim on 29.4.91 and the victim was identified before him by her husband Mondal Barman. 7. P.W.2 is Dr. Mihir Kr. Banerjee, who at the relevant point of time was attached to Sub-divisional Hospital, Dinhata. He examined the victim on 29.4.91 and the victim was identified before him by her husband Mondal Barman. The doctor in his deposition disclosed that he did not find any mark of recent injury on the private parts of the victim or no such recent injury was also seen on her breasts and lower abdominal wall. The doctor added in his evidence that if a woman like victim having 4 children between the ages from 16 years to 4 years was raped by a person then injuries on her vaginal region would not occur but if the woman offered violent resistance then some injuries might occur in other parts except the vaginal region. 8. P.W.5, S.I. Hari Sadhan Mondal, who on receipt of a formal complaint started the case. P.W.15, S.I. K.P. Upadhyay is the S.I. who took up the investigation of the case on 28.4.91 and on the same day visited the P.O., seized alamat like one saree having blackish red colour, which was found in torn condition in different parts and which on being tendered was marked Mat. Ext.1 in connection with the trial, a lamp which was seized from the bed room and marked Mat. Ext.2. The I.O. further disclosed in his evidence that on the same day at the night he raided the house of the accused/appellant to secure his arrest. He could not be traced out. Thereafter on the basis of a source information he again raided the house of the accused/appellant on 3.5.91 that is to say a few days after the incident and could arrest the accused/appellant on that day from his house. At the time of advancing his argument, the learned Advocate for the appellant has wanted to impress us that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity between the accused and the husband of the appellant regarding a payment of the consideration money of a land transferred. He has also drawn our attention to some of the discrepancies in the evidence in order to establish that the allegation raised is totally false. In this respect he has also relied on the medical evidence as discussed above apart from the discrepancies pointed out by him. He has also drawn our attention to some of the discrepancies in the evidence in order to establish that the allegation raised is totally false. In this respect he has also relied on the medical evidence as discussed above apart from the discrepancies pointed out by him. Lastly it is urged by the learned defence lawyer that the prosecution case which has been disclosed through the evidence specially the evidence of the victim is improbable and if the court proceeds to accept the same then it should also hold that the victim was a consenting party regarding the commission of sexual intercourse. The learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the prosecution, on the other hand has supported the judgment impugned. He has further submitted that this court has got no cogent reason to reject the evidence of the victim, on the point of incident. Regarding the absence of the injury mark on the person of the victim, the learned P.P. has fully supported the observation of the learned Sessions Judge by contending that the victim woman being a married woman having 4 children, it is not expected that there would be any injury on her person. In this respect he has also drawn our attention to the prosecution allegation that the victim was pulled down to the floor of the room where the offence was committed, so normally the victim would not suffer any injury on her person. Regarding the discrepancy in the evidence pointed out by the learned Advocate, it has been submitted that such discrepancies cannot go to the very root of the case raising a reasonable suspicion about the entire prosecution allegation. 9. On going through the evidence as discussed above, and after hearing the contention of the learned Advocates for both sides, we find that there is no possible reason to reject evidence of the victim woman (P.W.1). In our considered opinion a dispute regarding payment of consideration money cannot be a sufficient reason for the victim or her husband to bring a charge of rape against the accused specially in the circumstances that at the relevant point of time, the victim woman had a grown up son, who according to her was aged about 16 years and she was a mother of 4 children. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors., reported in (1996)2 SCC 384 , the Apex Court has laid down that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Considering the evidence on record before this court, the reason for falsely implicating a case like this is not at all sufficient. Secondly, the discrepancy such as while the victim in her evidence stated that she remained inside the bed room till the next morning but some of the witnesses who claimed to hear all about the incident from the victim or from her husband saw her in the courtyard cannot be fatal for the prosecution case. It has been pointed out by the learned defence lawyer that the conduct of the prosecutrix is of suspicious nature as she claimed that in the morning time she took a bath and washed the wearing saree and her private parts. In our considered opinion, this is also not very material in view of the simple reason that prosecutrix was a rustic woman having little education who had to face a very humiliating situation in course of the night and normally the woman would consider to have a bath and to wash the saree in order to erase the memory of that unfortunate incident. We are to add here that there is no material on record to hold that in fact there was any dispute going on between the parties that is to say the husband of the victim and the accused over non-payment of consideration money as the defence wants to allege through the cross-examination. 10. We are to add here that there is no material on record to hold that in fact there was any dispute going on between the parties that is to say the husband of the victim and the accused over non-payment of consideration money as the defence wants to allege through the cross-examination. 10. Before we part with the matter, we should point out that in a reported decision of the Apex Court (A.I.R. 1981 SC 897), the Hon'ble Court observed that in this country it was rare to come across the testimony of a witness which did not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although his evidence might be true in the main. It is the function of the court to separate the grains from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest. The decision of the Apex Court in the State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors.(supra) proceeded further by pointing out that the testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. We have already noted here that we have found the oral testimony of P.W.1 reliable and convincing. Her evidence has specifically pointed out that she was sleeping inside a room having an improvised door so that door could be opened from the outside. The accused who was not a stranger to the house must have known about this and took that opportunity in fulfilling his desire. For the reason that the accused/appellant could enter inside the room in the night of the commission of offence cannot inspire us in any way to rush to a conclusion that the victim must be a consenting party. 11. Thus considering the evidence on record and other relevant facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. I agree. Appeal dismissed.