GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision, the petitioner assails the judgments of the courts below wherein he was tried for the offence punishable under Section 376 I. P. C. and accordingly sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500. 00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one Pisangi Nagamani (P. W. 1) is living separately from her husband and is doing prawns business. On 31-8-1996 in the morning, she purchased prawns at Yanam and sold the same at Neelapalli village. The petitioner, who is a resident of Neelapalli village, purchased prawns and owed an amount of Rs. 2. 00 to P. W. 1 and when she went to collect the dues from the petitioner, the petitioner asked her to sit on the pail and went inside the house. After a little while, the petitioner suddenly caught hold of her hands, dragged her into the house stating that he would give her the money and bolted the doors of the house and later pushed her on a cot and gagged her mouth with a cloth and had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. Later, P. W. 1 went to her house with profuse bleeding from the vagina and pain on her private parts and informed the same to her brother who immediately took her to the Police Station, Yanam, where they were advised to go to the Government Hospital at Yanam. On reference by the Doctor at Yanam, P. W. 1 was treated at Government General Hospital at Kakinada by P. W. 11. On intimation, the S. I. of Police, Kakinada, went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P. W. 1 and referred the matter to Coringa Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. The Head Constable (P. W. 13) registered the case in crime No. 142 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 376 I. P. C. and after investigation, the Inspector of Police (P. W. 14) filed the charge sheet. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ramgopal is that the offence according to the prosecution took place at 4. ( 3 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Ramgopal is that the offence according to the prosecution took place at 4. 00 P. M. on 31-8-1996 whereas the Doctor (P. W. 11) who examined P. W. 1 stated that she treated the victim at 3. 00 A. M. on 1-9-1996 and that according to the Doctor, the sexual intercourse might have taken place approximately within two to four hours prior to her examination. In view of the said statement of the Doctor, the sexual intercourse must have taken place around 11. 00 to 1. 00 O clock on the intervening night of 31-8-1996/1-9-1996. Hence, it is contended that the medical evidence falsifies the case of the prosecution. ( 4 ) IT is further contended that if it is really a case of rape without her consent, there must be some external body injuries but according to the victim as well as the medical evidence, there are no external injuries on the body of the victim. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the relevant paragraphs of Modi s Medical Jurisprudence. He also relied on a judgment of a division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Biram Soren v. State of West Bengal, 1992 Criminal L. J. 1666. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 6 ) IN the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary for this court to first go into the evidence let in by the prosecution. The evidence of P. W. 1 is to the effect that she went to the house of the petitioner to collect the dues and that at that time, the wife of the petitioner was absent and therefore she wanted to came back from there. But when the petitioner called her stating that he would give her the money, she came near the house. Thereupon, the petitioner dragged her into the house, put a cloth in her mouth, fell on her and had sexual intercourse with her. Immediately thereafter, she went to her house, informed her mother, sister in law and niece and fell down near the doorsteps of the house. According to her further evidence, she was heavily bleeding and her clothes were soaked with blood. Immediately thereafter, she went to her house, informed her mother, sister in law and niece and fell down near the doorsteps of the house. According to her further evidence, she was heavily bleeding and her clothes were soaked with blood. On return, her brother, coming to know of the incident, called the elders and later proceeded to the Government Hospital. During the course of the trial, though the defence counsel tried to give suggestions to P. W. 1 that a false case was foisted on account of some rivalry between the two families in connection with Panchayat elections, P. W. 1 denied the said suggestion and she also withstood the cross-examination. There is absolutely nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 as she has spoken consistently about the actual offence in so many words. ( 7 ) THE evidence of the Doctor (P. W. 11) is to the effect that at 3. 00 A. M. on 1-9-1996, she examined the victim and though she did not find any external injuries on the body of the deceased, she found a transverse incised laceration of 5 cm. , in length and 0. 5 cm. , in depth on the posterior vaginal wall, 1 cm. , below the posterior lip of the cervix. As the patient was in a state of unconscious condition, after her general condition is improved, the vaginal tear was repaired under general anesthesia with a bottle of compatible blood. According to P. W. 11, the vaginal tear was due to sexual intercourse. Of course, in her cross-examination, P. W. 11 stated that the sexual intercourse might have taken place approximately within two to four hours prior to her examination. ( 8 ) IT is true that there were no external injuries on the body of the victim but on that score alone, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. Modi s Medical Jurisprudence describes the marks of violence on the body of a victim of rape. According to the same, in such cases when there is violence, the body of the victim especially the fore arms, wrist, face, breasts, chest, lower part of the abdomen, inner aspects of thigh and back should be examined for marks of violence. According to him, when there is violence, there may be teeth marks on breasts, nipples, cheeks or lips. According to the same, in such cases when there is violence, the body of the victim especially the fore arms, wrist, face, breasts, chest, lower part of the abdomen, inner aspects of thigh and back should be examined for marks of violence. According to him, when there is violence, there may be teeth marks on breasts, nipples, cheeks or lips. ( 9 ) ALL those described in Modi s Medical Jurisprudence is about the cases where there is violence. But, it is not as if the victim in each and every case of rape receives marks of violence. Naturally, in cases of rape, the victim definitely resists the culprit but it cannot be said that such resistance should invariably leave marks of violence on the body of the victim in each and every case. When it is the case of the prosecution that there was violence and there are external injuries, then they are to be looked into in the manner in which it is described in the Modi s Medical Jurisprudence. Here is a case where P. W. 1 was dragged into the house and her mouth was gagged and later the petitioner committed sexual assault. As there was no violence at the time of commission of offence, there were no visible external injuries found on the body of the victim but the medical evidence establishes that there was a vaginal tear on account of the sexual intercourse and this clinchingly proves that P. W. 1 was raped. ( 10 ) THE Judgment of the Calcutta High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not lend any support to the facts of the case on hand. The facts in the above mentioned judgment are entirely different. In that case, the accused has taken up the defence that the victim had consented to the act and the report was lodged after 10 days of the incident and that the victim therein stated in her evidence that she had resisted the attack vehemently. In the instant case, the overall situation is entirely different. In this case, few hours immediately after the incident, P. W. 1 was taken to the hospital where she was examined and treated by the doctor. Further, the police report was also given within few hours from the time of offence. In the instant case, the overall situation is entirely different. In this case, few hours immediately after the incident, P. W. 1 was taken to the hospital where she was examined and treated by the doctor. Further, the police report was also given within few hours from the time of offence. Furthermore, the evidence of P. W. 1 is that when she tried to resist, the petitioner gagged her mouth with a cloth and forcibly committed sexual assault. The decision of the Calcutta High Court which was rendered in the light of the particular facts of that case is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 376 I. P. C. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below. ( 12 ) IN the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.