Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. The appellant was a teacher who used to coach prosecutrix Geeta Kumari, and her sister at the latters residence. As usual, on 30th April, 1989, appellant Jinish Lal Sah came to the house of Geeta Kumari and on some pretext or other, told that he would not teach them that day and retired from the place on a motorcycle. Be it a coincidence, Geeta Kumari left her house to watch a film on TV in the neighbours house, who was none else but her grandfather Gajendra Prasad Singh. She noticed the appellant standing when the latter made inquiry from her about the object she was going, and after Geeta Kumari told him that she was going to watch a film in the neighbours house, the appellant informed that TV of her neighbour had gone out of order. Shortly thereafter, it is alleged that he proposed her to accompany him to go to Sitamarhi for witnessing a film and having prevailed upon her, he caught hold of her hands and made her seated on his motorcycle. The appellant, however, proceeded on the motorcycle towards Muzaffarpur and on inquiry being made by Geeta Kumari, asked her to be quiet, or she might be killed the appellant assured her that after witnessing the film, he would take her to her house. However, it did not so happen, as the appellant on reaching Muzaffarpur entrusted his motorcycle to a person and took Geeta Kumari to Jasidish and thereafter to Baidyanath Dham. It was alleged that the appellant took her in a room and forced her to marry him which was spurned by her. She alleged that the appellant on a letter addressed to himself obtained her signature and, on confining her in a room, ravished her. She was kept in the room till 8th May, 1989 pursuant to which she was taken to Bazitpur, from where the appellant hails, on 9th May, 1989. Allegations were also attributed to the appellant that he took out golden necklace from her neck. 2. The parents of the girl, finding her missing from the house, took recourse to Police authority on 1st May, 1989 and on activation of the Police, Geta Kumari was recovered from the house of the appellant on 10th May, 1989 by Shri Anand Prakash Singh, Officer Incharge, Dumra Police Station, who happens to be P.W. 12 of the case. 2. The parents of the girl, finding her missing from the house, took recourse to Police authority on 1st May, 1989 and on activation of the Police, Geta Kumari was recovered from the house of the appellant on 10th May, 1989 by Shri Anand Prakash Singh, Officer Incharge, Dumra Police Station, who happens to be P.W. 12 of the case. After the Police was set in motion by the father of the prosecutrix, the investigation commenced and in process of collection of evidence during investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses including that of the prosecutrix, got her clinically examined by the doctor, collected evidence about recovery of the prosecutrix from the house of the appellant and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court, pursuant to which on case being committed to the Court of Session, the appellant was put on trial. 3. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication and further defence, as emerging from the suggestion given to the witnesses and also statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would unerringly suggest that as the prosecutrix was trading love affairs with one paramour, who eventually betrayed her, only to take shelter, had gone to the house of the appellant when she was recovered by the Police. 4. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses and the trial court placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the witnesses, rendered verdict of guilt finding the appellant guilty under Sections 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years on both counts with a direction that both the sentences would run concurrently. 5. Now adverting to the evidences placed on record, that can be broadly classified in three categories. Firstly, there is evidence of the prosecutrix, secondly there is evidence of Smt. Shail Devi (P.W. 2), Rita Dev (P.W. 4) and Jamuna Singh (P.W. 6), who are mother, sister and father, respectively of the prosecutrix, whose evidences are only about missing of the prosecutrix from the house, and inquiry being made by them about her where about. Firstly, there is evidence of the prosecutrix, secondly there is evidence of Smt. Shail Devi (P.W. 2), Rita Dev (P.W. 4) and Jamuna Singh (P.W. 6), who are mother, sister and father, respectively of the prosecutrix, whose evidences are only about missing of the prosecutrix from the house, and inquiry being made by them about her where about. Other set of evidence was of those persons who claim to have witnessed Geeta Kumari in the company of the appellant on motorcycle and their evidences are that of Anup Lal Singh (P.W. 1), Ramanand Mahto (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.w. 5). That apart, there is evidence of the doctor Smt. Malti Jha (P.W. 10) who clinically examined the prosecutrix on 10th May, 1989. The two Police officers who contributed to the investigation of the case happen to be Washi Ahmad, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Dumra, (P.W. 11) and Anand Prakash Singh, Officer Incharge, Dumra Police Station (P.W. 12). One also comes across the evidence of Dinesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 7), who claims to have witnessed recovery of Geeta Kumari from the house of the appellant. Babu Lal Singh (P.W. 8), stated to be one of the signatories of the recovery memo, was tendered by the State. 6. Now, firstly adverting to the evidences of parents and sisters of the prosecutrix, one would find Shail Devi (P.W. 2), mother of the prosecutrix, stating before the Court about Geeta Kumari missing from the house in the evening of 30th April, 1989, shortly after the appellant had reached her house to coach her two daughters as usual, and on some pretext or the other, did not teach them and left her house. Geeta Kumari, it was stated by her, went to the neighbours house to witness a film on TV and she did not return her house till late hours in the night and while hectic searches were made for her, she came to know from Anup Lal Singh (P.W. 1) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 5) about the appellant taking Geeta Kumari on a motorcycle with him. Similar had been the evidence of Rita Debi (P.W. 4) and she too alleged to have been informed by Anil Kumar (P.W. 5) and Ramananad Mahto (P.W. 3) about the appellant taking Geeta on his motor cycle. Similar had been the evidence of Rita Debi (P.W. 4) and she too alleged to have been informed by Anil Kumar (P.W. 5) and Ramananad Mahto (P.W. 3) about the appellant taking Geeta on his motor cycle. The evidence of Jamuna Singh (P.W. 6) was reiteration of his early version which he rendered before the Police and he too stated about Anil Kumar and Ramanand Mahato stating before him about the appellant having taken Geeta on his motorcycle. 7. Now adverting to the evidence of Anup Lal (P.W. 1), he claimed to have witnessed the prosecutrix in the company of the appellant on a motorcycle at Murarpur chowk and similar had been the evidence of Ramanand Mahto (P.W. 3) and Anil Kumar (P.W. 5) about witnessing the appellant in the company of the prosecutrix on a motorcycle. As has been stated, Dinesh Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) would state about recovery of prosecutrix from the house of the appellant on 10th April 1989 during the pendency of the investigation by the Police and he along with Babu Lal Singh (P.W. 8) happened to be the signatory to the recovery memo. Now adverting to the evidence of the prosecutrix, she would allege that after she left her house on 30th May, 1989, to witness a film on TV in the neighbours house, she was questioned by the appellant as to where she was going and on disclosing her object, she was informed by the appellant that TV in the neighbours house had gone out of order. Shortly thereafter, the appellant placed proposal before her to go to Sitamari for witnessing a film. He caught her hands and got her seated on the motorcycle and she posing confidence in the teacher, as he used to teach her, sat on the motorcycle. However, the appellant instead of taking her to Sitamarhi, took her to Muzaffarpur when on being questioned by her, he threatened her to shoot her down. She was taken to Muzaffarpur and eventually she was moved to Deoghar where she was confined in a room where on a letter addressed to himself, the appellant forced her to put signature and also ravished her that night. She would state that thereafter she was taken to Bazitpur, which happens to be the village of the appellant, on 9th May, 1989. She would state that thereafter she was taken to Bazitpur, which happens to be the village of the appellant, on 9th May, 1989. However, as the police happened to come on 10th May, 1989, she was rescued from the house of the appellant, pursuant to which she was clinically examined by the doctor. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix found her to be aged 17 years. The lady doctor noticed auxilliary and pubic hair thick and coarse and old hymen ruptured, though there was no evidence of recent sign of sexual contact. 8. Washi Ahmad (P.W. 11) stated to have drawn up the first information report on the strength of the statement of the father of the prosecutrix, recorded statement of the witnesses, visited place of occurrence, got the prosecutrix medically examined, pursuant to her recovery from the house of the appellant and, having laid the charge sheet before the Court. The Police officer would state about getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Evidence of Anand Prakash Singh (P.W. 12) was about recovery of the victim girl from the house of the appellant. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State to land credence to the prosecution allegation about abduction of Geeta Kumari and eventual rape by the appellant on her. 9. The findings recorded by the trial court was sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on premises that though the prosecutrix would allege about commission of sexual assault on her on 30th April, 1989 and also successive sexual assault, when she was kept confined in different places for about ten days, but the doctor who clinically examined her, did not find evidence of recent sexual assault on her. Learned counsel would urge that, simple confinement of the prosecutrix in the house of the appellant and also in the places where she is shown to have been confined for days together, would not persuade the Court to believe commission of rape on the prosecutrix, for want of medical evidence. Learned counsel would urge that, simple confinement of the prosecutrix in the house of the appellant and also in the places where she is shown to have been confined for days together, would not persuade the Court to believe commission of rape on the prosecutrix, for want of medical evidence. Contentions were raised that even in the estimation made by different authorities who claim to have assessed age of the prosecutrix, she was found major and since she was found adult, it was quite unlikely that she would not raise alarm even when she was being moved by the appellant in the public place and reliance on this score was placed on a decision of the apex Court of the land reported in 1995 Cri. L.J. 3974. (Shyam and another v. State of Maharashtra). However, I find that the facts of this case are pole apart, as in the case cited at Bar, prior to the date of abduction, the appellant had put proposal before the prosecutrix for marriage and that she was lifted by the appellant from the public place where there was likelihood of presence of so many persons and in that view of the matter, observations were made by the apex court that in the backdrop of the proposal of the appellant to marry her, it was not quite unlikely that she would not raise alarm, considering the nefarious design of the appellant which she had already spurned. 10. Though there is no rule of law that evidence of the prosecutrix alone should not be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars, this fact should not be lost sight of that she is like an injured witness and she is competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured, in case of physical violence. Though much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant suggesting her to be a consenting part in view of she having not raised alarm in the public places, one should not lose sight of the fact that she was made to accompany the appellant on pretext of taking her to Sitamarhi for watching a film, as TV of the neighbours house had gone out of order. Since the appellant caught her hand and was a teacher, she, posing confidence on him, gave her company to him which does not appear to be either improbable and unnatural or running contrast to the conduct of a student. There has been no evidence that even for the first time when the appellant asked her to go to Sitamarhi, she gave her company voluntarily to him, and even if there be some evidence that she gave her consent to the appellant thereafter, it is well established principle of law that it is no defence that a woman having consented after the act, will be deemed to have consented, as the defence to an allegation of rape requires voluntary participation. If the evidence of the prosecutrix was taken to be true on face value, while being taken to Muzaffarpur, she had resisted and registered her protest when she was threatened to be shot dead, and by no stretch of imagination, the act of the prosecutrix would constitute to be her voluntary participation. So a hopeless resignation, in the face of inevitable compulsion or permissive action cannot be cited to be a consent. Admitted facts are that the appellant was teaching the prosecutrix and on the day of the incident on some pretext or other, he did not teach her though he visited her house. He made false pretext before the prosecutrix about TV of the neighbours house having gone out of order and ostensibly all that was done was to suit the design of the appellant. Though the doctor did not find evidence of commission of rape on the prosecutrix, this fact cannot be lost sight, that the prosecutrix did not allow commission of sexual assault on her after 30th April, 1989 when she was confined in the house at Deoghar. It is admitted that prosecutrix pursuant to her recovery from the house of the appellant was examined by the doctor not before 10th May, 1989 and it is not unlikely that medical examination of the prosecutrix after lapse of ten days would not rule out the presence of evidence of commission of rape on her. Since the recovery of the prosecutrix was made from the house of the appellant, which fact has also been admitted by the appellant, he is accountable under Section 364A of the IPC. Since the recovery of the prosecutrix was made from the house of the appellant, which fact has also been admitted by the appellant, he is accountable under Section 364A of the IPC. As has been stated, the appellant would justify recovery of the prosecutrix from his . house on premises that as she had eloped with paramour who had betrayed her, she had taken shelter in his house, but strangely enough even though such suggestions were given to the witnesses, the appellant at no stage, disclosed the name of the paramour about whom it has been suggested that he had been making complaint to the parents of the prosecutrix. Human nature is that whenever one finds a man abducting a girl of marriageable age, the first natural presumption would be about abducting with the intention of having sexual intercourse with her either forcibly or without consent after seduction, or after marrying her. 11. In view of the clinching evidence of the prosecutrix, there does not appear to be good reason in view of her confinement for ten days by the appellant that she was not subjected to sexual assault by the appellant. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant does not bear merit and hence has to be rejected. 12. Having given consideration to the evidences placed on record and also the defence raised on behalf of the appellant at her, I feel that the findings were recorded by the trial court on meticulous appreciation of the evidences placed on record which do not merit interference. The findings recorded by the trial court are accordingly upheld. It has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that right from the commencement of the trial, he has remained in custody for about two years and he seeks indulgence of the Court for reduction of the sentence. However, considering the relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant, which is that of a teacher and student, I find myself not persuaded with the argument to reduce the sentence imposed against the appellant. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the court below forthwith to serve the sentence. The trial Court is also directed to take all coercive steps to take the appellant in custody forthwith.