JUDGMENT : 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana District Bharatpur by which he has convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 376 and 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced as follows : U/s. 376 Indian Penal Code to undergo seven years' R.I. U/s. 323 Indian Penal Code to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. It arises in the following circumstances that on 28.4.1999, P.W.3 Triveni Devi wife of Dhara Singh aged about 24 years lodged the report Ex.P/3 with the Police Station Halena; District Bharatpur stating therein that on 27.4.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. she went to Jungle for purpose of taking back her cows and when she was returning and when she reached near the well of Ramkaur thereupon, accused appellant came from her backside, caught hold of her waist and put her on the ground and thereafter committed rape with her. It was further stated in the report that she tried her best but the accused appellant did not leave her and after committing rape the accused appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. It was further stated in the report that after she reached at her house in weeping condition and since her husband Dhara Singh, P.W.2 was outside of the village and had gone for purpose of playing band therefore, the report was not lodged on 27.4.1999 and the same was lodged on 28.4.1999. On this report, the police chalked out the first information report Ex.P/4 and started investigation. During investigation through Ex.P/6 broken bangles of Triveni P.W.3 were seized and accused appellant was got arrested through arrest memo Ex.P/7 and medical examination to ascertain the fact whether rape was committed with Triveni P.W.3 or not was got conducted by Dr. Ram Khiladi Meena, P.W.1 and that report of medical examination is Ex.P/1 which shows that the prosecutrix sustained three injuries. After investigation, challan was filed by the police before the concerned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges for the offence under Sections 376 and 323 Indian Penal Code were framed and read over and explained to the accused appellant who denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. After investigation, challan was filed by the police before the concerned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Charges for the offence under Sections 376 and 323 Indian Penal Code were framed and read over and explained to the accused appellant who denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. During trial as many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution, recorded the statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code In defence two witnesses were examined. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellant before this Court. 4. In this appeal, the following submissions have been raised - (i) that there is delay in lodging of the first information report Ex.P/3 by the prosecutrix Triveni, P.W.3 as the incident took place on 27.4.1999 and the report was lodged on 28.4.1999; (ii) that the medical evidence does not corroborate the statement of Prosecutrix Triveni P.W.3 as injuries sustained by the prosecutrix may be self inflicted; (iii) that the fact that the bangles were broken is not mentioned in the report Ex.P/3; (iv) that since a quarrel took place between the prosecutrix Triveni, P.W.3 and Vimla wife of accused appellant, therefore, because of that quarrel this case was lodged against the accused appellant to implicate him falsely; and that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the defence version; and (v) that the learned trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on the statement of P.W.3 Triveni Devi. On the basis of the above contentions it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charges under Sections 376 and 323 Indian Penal Code. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. Before proceeding further first the medical evidence in this case has to be looked into and for that the statement of Dr. Ram Khiladi Meena P.W.1 may be referred to. Dr. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. Before proceeding further first the medical evidence in this case has to be looked into and for that the statement of Dr. Ram Khiladi Meena P.W.1 may be referred to. Dr. Ram Khiladi Meena, P.W.1 has clearly stated that on 28.4.1999 he examined P.W.3 Triveni and found following three injuries on her person : (i) Two abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm. each back side of elbow joint - simple blunt superficial. (ii) Linear scratches base of left side of mandibular region - simple blunt. 6. This witness has proved Ex.P/1 injury report. He has further stated that on private parts of Triveni P.W.3 he did not find any sort of injury. Thus, from the statement of Dr. Ram Khiladi Meena, P.W.1 it is established that the injuries mentioned in the injury report Ex.P/1 were found on the person of prosecutrix Triveni but no injury was found on her private parts. 7. The next question arises whether the findings of conviction are liable to be confirmed or not and for that the statement of Triveni P.W.3, who is the main witness in the cases of rape, has to be seen. Before appreciating the evidence some legal position in respect of the testimony of prosecutrix in rape cases have to be kept in mind. If the victim is unwilling to yield to sexual intercourse, she is expected to receive injuries on her person. The absence of injuries on the body of prosecutrix, generally, gives rise to an inference that she was consenting party to coitus. Where the prosecutrix receives multiple injuries on the various parts of her body it indicates that she offered resistance when she was subjected to sexual intercourse. It would be too much to hold that whenever a prosecutrix is found to have sustained no visible injury in a case of rape, consent on her part should be presumed. In a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. The main evidence in all such cases is that of the victim herself. The prosecutrix of a sex offence is a victim of a crime. In a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. The main evidence in all such cases is that of the victim herself. The prosecutrix of a sex offence is a victim of a crime. In practice a conviction for rape almost entirely depends on the credibility of the woman, so far as the essential ingredients are concerned, the other evidence being merely corroborative. It is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case apart from the testimony of the complainant should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the complainant is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. A prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. 8. Keeping the above aspect in mind, the statement of P.W.3 Triveni the prosecutrix in the present case is critically examined. In report Ex.P/3, Triveni Devi P.W.3 has clearly mentioned that the accused appellant caught hold of her from her back side and thereafter after putting her on the ground he committed rape with her and since her husband was not at home, therefore, she did not lodge the report on the same day and the report was lodged when her husband returned. In her statement Triveni, P.W.3 has fully supported the version given in the first information report Ex.P/3 and she has further stated that when she was resisting the act of the appellant, she sustained injuries, and her bangles were also broken. She has been cross-examined at length but nothing has come out from her cross-examination, which affects her testimony. She has specifically refused to the suggestions that the report was lodged falsely because of quarrel with one lady Vimla. She has been cross-examined at length but nothing has come out from her cross-examination, which affects her testimony. She has specifically refused to the suggestions that the report was lodged falsely because of quarrel with one lady Vimla. No doubt that she has stated that she also sustained injuries on her private parts but this fact is not being supported by the medical evidence. But her evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence that she sustained injuries during struggle when rape was being committed by the accused appellant with the prosecutrix Triveni, P.W.3. Thus, there is ample corroboration in this case from the medical evidence. If forcible sexual intercourse is committed with a lady there would be injuries on the person of the victim and the same is found in the present case. The statement of Triveni P.W.3 further gets corroboration from the statement of her husband Dhara Singh, P.W.2 who has also stated that as soon as he came at the house he was informed by his wife Triveni that accused appellant had committed rape with her. 9. Apart from these facts, the fact of broken bangles also further leads (lends ?) assurance to the statement of prosecutrix Triveni. The argument that the fact of broken bangles is not found in the first information report Ex.P/3, and, therefore, this aspect cannot be looked into is of no avail because of the simple reason that in the FIR every detail is not to be mentioned and the first information report is not the last word. Hence, in this argument there is no weight. 10. In this case no doubt that the occurrence took place on 27.4.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. and the report was lodged on 28.4.1999 at about 3.30 p.m. but the explanation which has been rendered by P.W.3 Triveni, prosecutrix in her report Ex.P/3 appears to be probable. Since her husband was not in the town therefore, no report lodged on the same day and the report was lodged on the next day after coming over of husband of the prosecutrix. Such type of delay is not 'delay' in the eye of law and cannot be fatal to the prosecutrix case. Since her husband was not in the town therefore, no report lodged on the same day and the report was lodged on the next day after coming over of husband of the prosecutrix. Such type of delay is not 'delay' in the eye of law and cannot be fatal to the prosecutrix case. For this, I would like to refer the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : (1) Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., ( AIR 1995 SC 2472 ); (2) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, ( AIR 1996 SC 1393 ); (3) Prithi Chand v. State of H.P. ( AIR 1989 SC 702 ). 11. Therefore, in this case, it is held that the so called delay is not fatal to the prosecution case. 12. The argument that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the version is also of no value in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case of the defence in this respect is that a quarrel took place between Vimla, wife of the accused appellant and the prosecutrix Triveni and for that this false case was instituted. In support of that defence, the accused appellant examined two witnesses. The learned trial Court has rejected the defence version simply on the ground that Vimla has not been produced. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this reasoning is based on correct appreciation of evidence and thus, defence version was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. It may further be stated here that plea of an accused of rape that he was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity is not at all appreciable as no woman would like to harm her reputation by making a false report learned. Hence, this argument of enmity is also not helpful. 13. The argument that semen was not found on clothes of the prosecutrix in the circumstances of the present case is also not helpful and mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case.Before concluding it will also be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. (2000 Cr.L.J. (S.C.) 4683, State of A.P. v. Kankapalli Venkateshwarlu) and (1998 Cr.L.J. 3209, Chirag Khan v. State of Rajasthan) (Rajasthan High Court). (2000 Cr.L.J. (S.C.) 4683, State of A.P. v. Kankapalli Venkateshwarlu) and (1998 Cr.L.J. 3209, Chirag Khan v. State of Rajasthan) (Rajasthan High Court). In my considered opinion, both the decisions would not be helpful to the accused appellant as in the present case, medical evidence has supported the case of the prosecution while the position in the above two decisions was otherwise. For the reasons mentioned above findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court for offence under Sections 376 and 323 Indian Penal Code are liable to be confirmed as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and law and this appeal of the accused appellant is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 56/1999.Appeal dismissed. *******