Judgment Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the Judgment and order dated 2-8-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 40/2000 by which he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the following manner:-All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short are as follows: On 25-6-2000 at about 6.00 p.m. P.W. 1 Kalawati (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) wife of Kanaram lodged an oral report Ex. P/i with the Police Station Rawatsar before P.W. 3 Maonhar Lal stating inter alia that her husband (Kanaram) had gone towards the side of Hanumangarh along with the Revad and in the morning of 25-6-2000 at about 9.00 a.m. she went towards the north tibba for the purpose of satisiring nature’s call and when she sat for the above work along with the lotta, a person came behind her and after hearing some sound, she stood up and found that the said person was accused-appellant-Jaswant and the accused-appellant came before her and encircled her by his hands and put her on the ground, but she stood up and tried to run away, but ultimately in third attempt, the accused-appellant put her on the ground and after lifting her gagra and after opening his paijama and kachha, he committed rape with her and during that process, she was crying. It was further stated in the report that the accused-appellant bite her chin of left side and when she made resistance, accused-appellant gave a fist blow on her right chin and during struggle, her bangles were broken and she also received injuries on her wrist because of broken bangles. It was further stated in the report that after hearing her cries, P.W. 2 Kumbharam came there and, thereafter, the accused-appellant ran away towards the field. It was further stated in the report that during struggle, she also received some abrasions and after coming over to her house, she narrated the whole incident to her sister and mother-in-law. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/2 and started investigation. During investigation, site plan Ex. P/3 was prepared by the police and through Ex. P/4, P.W. 6 Jassaram seized borla, one lotta of steel and broken bangles of the prosecutrix from the place of occurrence. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/2 and started investigation. During investigation, site plan Ex. P/3 was prepared by the police and through Ex. P/4, P.W. 6 Jassaram seized borla, one lotta of steel and broken bangles of the prosecutrix from the place of occurrence. The accused-appellant was arrested through arrest memo Ex. P15. On the same day i.e. on 25-6-2000, the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati was got medically examined by P.W. 4 Dr. Hanuman Singh and her medical examination report is Ex. P/8. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-appellant in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 19-9-2000, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar framed charges for the offence under Sections 376(1), 324 and 323,1.P.C. against the accused-appellant. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, no evidence was produced by the accused-appellant. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar through his Judgment and order dated 2-8-2001 convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 376(1), 324 and 323, I.P.C. and sentenced in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellant for the said offences and he has placed reliance on the statements of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati and P.W. 2 Kumbharam and other corroborative evidence and medical evidence. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order dated 2-8-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar, this appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant. 3-4. In this appeal, the following submissions have been raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant:- (1) That alleged incident took place on 25-6-2000 in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. and the report Ex. P/1 was lodged in the evening and thus, according to the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, there was delay in lodging the report Ex. P/1. P/1 was lodged in the evening and thus, according to the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant, there was delay in lodging the report Ex. P/1. (2) The prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati did not receive any injury on her private part and, therefore, the case of the prosecution that she was forcibly raped by the accused-appellant should not be accepted. (3) That the fact that prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati left the lotta and her chappal on the place of occurrence is not found in the report Ex. P/1 and, therefore, the so-called recovery has no meaning. (4) That broken bangles were not found at the actual place of occurrence, but found at the place near to the place of occurrence and, therefore, this recovery would not be helpful to the prosecution. (5) That at the most if the statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati is going to be believed, then it was a case of consent and not of forcible sexual intercourse. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned Judgment and order be set aside and the accused-appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 7. Before proceeding further, first the medical evidence has to be seen which is found in the statement of P.W. 4 Dr. Hanuman Singh. 8. P.W. 4 Dr. Hanuman Singh has stated in his statement recorded in Court that on 25-6-2000 he was Medical Officer in the Government Hospital, Rawatsar and on that day he examined the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati and found the following injuries on her person:- (1) Abrasion marks 4 x 3 cm. size area in elliptical shape on right side of chin. (2) Abrasion 2x1 cm. size on anterior surface of left wrist. He has proved the injury report Ex. P/8. 9. Thus, from the statement of P.W. 4 Dr. Hanuman Singh, the fact that injuries as mentioned in the injury report Ex. P/8 were found on the person of prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati on the date of occurrence i.e. on 25-6-2000, is well proved. 10. size on anterior surface of left wrist. He has proved the injury report Ex. P/8. 9. Thus, from the statement of P.W. 4 Dr. Hanuman Singh, the fact that injuries as mentioned in the injury report Ex. P/8 were found on the person of prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati on the date of occurrence i.e. on 25-6-2000, is well proved. 10. In this case, the alleged incident had taken place on 25-6-2000 at about 9.00 a.m. and the report Ex. P/i was lodged in the evening on the same day and in the report Ex. P/i, there is a specific mention of the fact that husband of the prosecutrix was not in the village and he had gone to Hanumangarh and, therefore, if the report was lodged in the evening, that delay cannot be said to be a fatal one in any respect, as in sexual offence, delay in lodging the report can be due to Variety of reasons, particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the pro secutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. If delay is properly explained, that delay would not be fatal to the prosecution case. 11. In the present case, actually there is no delay as incident took place in the morning at about 9.00 a.m. on 25-6-2000 and the report was lodged on the same day in the evening. Hence, the argument that there was delay in lodging the report Ex. P/i stands rejected. 12. In rape cases, the main evidence is that of the victim herself and in the present case also, the learned trial Judge has placed reliance on the statement of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati. 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. 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. The evidence, no doubt, should not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with the crime. Corroboration may be by facts and circumstances. 13. 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 the prosecutrix, generally, gives rise to an inference that she was consenting party to coitus. Where the prosecutrix had received multiple injuries on the various parts of her body it indicated that she offered resistance when she was subjected to sexual interpourse. The absence of injuries either on the accused or on the prosecutrix shows that the prosecutrix did not resist but absence of injuries is not by itself sufficient to hold that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 14. Inthe present case, the prosecutrix P.W. 1 Kalawati has narrated the whole incident which had taken place with her in the report Ex. P/i and in Court examination, she has also narrated the same facts how and in what manner, the accused-appellant committed rape with her. She has clearly stated that accused-appellant became successful in third attempt in committing rape with her and during struggle, her bangles were broken and she also received injuries. She has further stated that on her making cries, P.W. 2 Kumbharam, who is her close relative, came there and seeing him, the accused-appellant ran away from the scene. This part of her statement further gets corroboration from the statement of P.W. 2 Kumbharam. 15. From the statement of PW-6 Jassaram, who was at the relevant time Probationary Officer and who inspected the place of occurrence, it appears that he seized lotta, borla and broken bangles through Ex. P/4 and the fact that bangles of the prosecutrix PW-i Kalawati were broken during struggle is also found in the report Ex. 15. From the statement of PW-6 Jassaram, who was at the relevant time Probationary Officer and who inspected the place of occurrence, it appears that he seized lotta, borla and broken bangles through Ex. P/4 and the fact that bangles of the prosecutrix PW-i Kalawati were broken during struggle is also found in the report Ex. P/i lodged by the prosecutrix PW-i Kalawati. Thus, these factors also corroborate to some extent the statement of the prosecutrix PW-i Kalawati. 16. It may be stated here that for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, especially when she is a married lady, the fact that she received injuries is a very important aspect of the case and that fact goes to show that she was not a consenting party to the coitus. If the prosecutrix received injuries, it indicates that she made resistance when she was being subjected for sexual intercourse. It is not necessary that during struggle, injuries on her private part must have been found. 17. Thus, the injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati have corroborative value and her complaints just after the occurrence to PW-2 Kumbharam and after coming over to her house, to her sister and mother-in-law, warrant credence to her statement. The medical evidence amply corroborates that she had injuries on her body and this leads to only one conclusion that she resisted at her best to the act of the accused-appellant, as she has clearly stated that in third attempt, the accused-appellant became successful in committing rape with her. 18. Apart from this, even the chemical examination report Ex. P/13 shows that gagra of the prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati was stained with human semen and this tact also corroborates the statement of the prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati. 19. In the above circumstances, the statement of prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati gets corroboration from the medical evidence as well as from circumstantial evidence and thus, conviction can be based on the testimony of the prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge was right in placing reliance on the statement of prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati as her statement is fully supported by the medical as well as other evidence. 20. In these circumstances, the learned trial Judge was right in placing reliance on the statement of prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati as her statement is fully supported by the medical as well as other evidence. 20. No doubt in the present, case the mother-in-law and sister of the prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati have not been produced, but in my considered opinion, failure of prosecution to produce the witnesses to whom prosecutrix narrated the whole story after rape, would not be fatal in every case, if there is remaining evidence to convict the accused of the charge of rape and in the present case, as already stated above, there is ample evidence and the statement of the prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati has ring of truth. 9.21. So far as the argument that it was a case of consent is concerned, in my considered opinion, that argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that prosecutrix PW-1 Kalawati received injuries and not only this, her bangles were broken. Had there been a case of consent, the position would have been different one. Hence, this argument is rejected. 10.22. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 376(1), 324 and 323, I.P.C. are liable to be confirmed as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. According, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Jaswant Singh is dismissed, after confirming the Judgment and order dated 2-8-2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh,