Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chum in Sessions Case No. 45/95, by which he acquitted the accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi of the charges for the offence under Sections 366 and 376,I.P.C. and accused-respondent No. 2 Ibrahim of the charges of the offence under Sections 120-B and 366, I.P.C. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows :- On 2-6-1995 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W. 3 Mangu lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before P.W. 8 Rameshwarlal, S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Churu stating inter alia that his brother Idris had gone to Iraq and Sahanaj, P.W. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 17-18 years was his niece. It was further stated in the report that on 30-5-1995 at about 5.00 p.m., accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi, after enticing prosecutrix P.W. 2Sahanaj, had taken her with him from Churu and kept with him for three days and since evening of 30-5-1995, search was being made about whereabout of the prosecutrix. It was further stated in the report that on 1-6-1995 in the noon, he along with Nawab, Daud, Asgar (P.W. 6) and Eliyas (P.W. 4), while searching prosecutrix from place to place, reached Athuni Rohi, where prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was found in the hut in the field and at that time, accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi was also there. It was further stated in the report that when P.W. 3 Mangu reached there in the hut, prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj told him that accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi had kidnapped her by enticing her and by putting her under fear, he has committed rape with her 3-4 times and when she refused to do so, he threatened her to kill. Thereafter, prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was brought in the Mohallah and meeting of the Panchayat was called and it was decided that report be lodged and thus, this report was lodged by P.W. 3 Mangu. On this report, regular FIR Ex. P/2 was chalked out and investigation was started. During investigation, the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was got medically examined and her medical examination report is Ex. P/6. The accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi was arrested on 26-6-1995 through Ex. P/7. On this report, regular FIR Ex. P/2 was chalked out and investigation was started. During investigation, the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was got medically examined and her medical examination report is Ex. P/6. The accused-respondent No. 1 Munsi was arrested on 26-6-1995 through Ex. P/7. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-respondents in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.On 2-11-1995, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu framed charges for the offence under Sections 366 and 376,1.P.C. against accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi and under Sections 120-B and 366, I.P.C. against accused-respondent No. 2-Ibrahim. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused-respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chum through his Judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them holding inter alia that it was a case of consent. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 3. Inthis appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj has specifically stated in her statement that the accused-respondent No. 1 -Munsi has committed rape on her with or without her consent and the accused-respondent No. 2-Ibrahim supplied the food and, therefore, the case of the prosecution should be held to be proved and reliance should be placed on the statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj. Hence, impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chum be set aside. 3A. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that impugned order of acquittal is based on correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chum acquitted both accused-respondents and thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order of acquittal in this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents arid perused the record of the case. 5. Sessions Judge, Chum acquitted both accused-respondents and thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order of acquittal in this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents arid perused the record of the case. 5. Toappreciate the above contentions, first medical evidence has to be looked into, which is found in the report Ex, P16 and the same was admitted during trial by the learned counsel for accused. From perusing the report Ex. P16, It appears that no sort of injury was found on any part of the body of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj and further, her age was assessed as 18 to 19 years. .6. Thus, from the report Ex. P16, the following two facts came into picture : 1. Theage of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj on the date of examination i.e. on 3-6-1995 was nearabout 18 to 19 years; and 2. That she did not receive any injury on any part of her body including her private part. 7. Itmay be further stated here that in the report Ex. P/i. P.W. 3 Mangu has mentioned the age ot the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj as about 17 and 18 years and, in these circumstances, the statement of P.W. 1 Islam, who is mother of the prosecutrix, that age of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was about 15 years, carries no weight, since P.W. 3 Islam has admitted in cross-examination that she does not remember the exact date of birth of the prosecutrix and whatever she is stating, she is stating as per memory. 8. Similarly, pro secutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj has herself admitted that she did not read in any school and, therefore, in the present case, there is no school certificate which could determine the age of the prosecutrix and in absence of school certificate or bith certificate, age, which has been assessed by the Doctor in the report Ex. P/6, would prevail and thus, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that prosecutrix was major on the date of occurrence, are liable to be confirmed. 9. It may be stated here that if the victim is unwilling to yield to sexual intercourse, she is expected to receive some injuries on her person. P/6, would prevail and thus, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that prosecutrix was major on the date of occurrence, are liable to be confirmed. 9. It may be stated here that if the victim is unwilling to yield to sexual intercourse, she is expected to receive some injuries on her person. The absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix generally gives rise to an inference that she was a consenting party to the coitus. The court is also aware that it is not necessary that in every case of rape injuries should have been caused, but this factor should remain in the mind of the Judge while deciding the case. 10. Now, the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj has to be critically examined. .11. The prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj in her examination-in-chief has stated that accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi took her under threat that in case she would not go with him, he would kill her, therefore, the frightened and went with him on foot and, thereafter, he took her to the hut in the field of Peeru Tell and at that time, nobody was there In the hut and after sometime, accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi asked her to lie down and then accused-respondent No. 1 -Munsi undressed himself and he also undressed her and then he committed sexual intercourse with her many times, but against her will and in the night, the food was supplied by accused-respondent No. 2-Ibrahim and accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi committed sexual intercourse with her many times during three days against her will. In cross-examination, she admits : 1. That we reached bus stand on foot and she was walking ahead accused-respondent No. 1 -Munshi. 2. That Bus Stand is at the distance of 1 km. from her house. 3. That when she was being undressed, her clothes were not torn and after lying down she slept straight and thereafter, accused-respondent No. 1 -Munsi fell on her, but she slept straight. 4. That for the first time, he had sex with her for 15 minutes and next time about one and half hour and whenever he had sex with her, he completed the full act. 5. That she was married three months back. 6. That she used to have sex with her husband earlier. 7. 4. That for the first time, he had sex with her for 15 minutes and next time about one and half hour and whenever he had sex with her, he completed the full act. 5. That she was married three months back. 6. That she used to have sex with her husband earlier. 7. That after doing sex, they got sound sleep and they were awakened by accused-respondent No. 2-Ibrahim and the food, which was supplied by accused-respondent No. 2-Ibrahim, was eaten by them together. 12. Looking to the above statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj, it appears that she remained in the company of the accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi for three days (from the evening of 30-5-1995 up to 1-6-1995); during these three days, she had sex many times with the accused-respondent No. 1 -Munsi; she was a married lady and habitual to sexual intercourse and she had sexual Intercourse with the accused-respondent No. 1-Mimsi many times and she did not receive any injury on her person or on her private part. In these circumstances, it can easily be said she was a consenting party right from the very beginning and it was not a case of forcible sexual Intercourse, Had there been forcible sexual intercourse by the accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi with the prosecutrix, some sort of injuries would have been received by the prosecutrix P.W, 2 Sahanaj and absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix negatives the allegation of rape and shows that the accused-respondent No. 1-Munsi had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj with her tacit consent. Thus, in absence of corroboration from medical evidence, the testimony of the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Sahanaj was rightly rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 13. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chum acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them are liable to be confirmed as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and they do not suffer from any inflriniity. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed, after confirming the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 4-7-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chum.