Judgment Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J. 1. Though appellant suffered conviction under Secs. 376 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, while no sentence was awarded on the latter count, he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years on the first count and was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00 , in default of which, he was to undergo three months imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case are tell a tale. Meena Devi. PW 3, the prosecutrix, allegedly had been to the field to answer natures call where appellant having pushed her on the ground, stripped her of clothes and committed sexual assault thereafter. While retiring from the place of occurrence, he also relieved her of ear ring. Shortly thereafter, she raised alarm and narrated her woes to Tabali Paswan, PW 4 who happened to come there on alarm. She also found her water pot missing. A number of persons had thronged to the place of occurrence. She also informed her mother-in-law and also husband who was ailing. Though appellant was called from the house but he did not turn up. Since she was scared and night had set in the Police could be informed only in the morning where she rendered her statement to set the police in motion. As usual, investigation followed and the Police on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court for putting appellant on trial. 3. In the eventual trial that followed, while State examined six witnesses, the defence too examined Ram Baran Yadav, DW 1, obviously to counter the accusations attributed to the appellant for commission of sexual assault on Meena Devi, the prosecutrix. 4. The defence of the appellant both before the Court below and this Court had been that of innocence and he ascribed his false implication due to land dispute. The explicit defence of the appellant was that since he constructed a house on gairmazarua land notwithstanding resi-stance made by the villagers including the husband of the prosecutrix, there had been false implication. The trial Court, however, on evaluating probative value of testimony of witnesses, while nega-tiving plea of innocence, rendered finding of guilt and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 5. Though narrations made by prosecution witnesses have been spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. The trial Court, however, on evaluating probative value of testimony of witnesses, while nega-tiving plea of innocence, rendered finding of guilt and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 5. Though narrations made by prosecution witnesses have been spelt out in the judgment of the Court below. in detail, a brief resume of the same may be discussed with brevity to appreciate contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. Meena Devi, the prosecutrix, PW 3 while reiterating her earliest version stated that while she had gone to the field to answer natures call at evening hours, the appellant having pushed on the ground, violated her person and also relieved her of earring, She also found her water pot missing. Since the night had set in, she took recourse to public authority only in the morning. The narration made by the prosecutrix finds corroboration from the evidence of another witness namely, Tabali Paswan, PW 4 who states to have been informed by the prosecutrix about commission of sexual assault on her by the appellant. Though he reprimanded the appellant for his act, he refuted the accusations attributed to him. He too accompanied prosecutrix to the police station in the morning from where she was referred to the doctor for clinical examination. Yet there is evidence of Sudheshwari Devi, PW 1, who happened to be mother-in-law of the prosecutrix and she says that after Meena Devi had gone to the field to answer natures call, she came and narrated her woes to her about commi-ssion of sexual assault on her by the appellant. 6. The State also examined other witnesses which are not of much signi-ficance and they happened to be Krishna-deo Jha, PW 2 who was simply tendered by the State. Umesh Jha, PW 5, stated to have heard about the incident from villagers and it appears that he had no talk with the prosecutrix. Ratnakar Sinha, PW 6, had brought injury- report of the prosecutrix on the record. 7. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that apart from the fact that since the doctor who clinically examined the prosecutrix had not been examined at trial finding recorded by the doctor could not have been looked into by the trial Court. Ratnakar Sinha, PW 6, had brought injury- report of the prosecutrix on the record. 7. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that apart from the fact that since the doctor who clinically examined the prosecutrix had not been examined at trial finding recorded by the doctor could not have been looked into by the trial Court. Even considering the finding recorded by the doctor it is urged that one cannot help feeling that there is no evidence of commission of rape on the prosecutrix. The trial Court, however, has not dealt with this issue in details. Considering submission canvassed at bar it can be pointed out that since prosecutrix was examined by the doctor on 28th July, 1989 after lapse of 20 hours, likelihood of presence of spermatozoa in vagina would be extremely remote. Other submission made on behalf of the appellant was that there has been total paucity of witnesses, as no one claimed to be present at the place of occurrence and on this score too, contention raised can be negatived on premises that the case of the prosecutrix even without corroboration can be relied upon by the Court, in case her evidence was found to be free from blemishes. It has been held by Courts in catena of decisions that the case of the prosecutrix, the victim of rape, stands at par with the injured witness, as she was not with an accomplice. In case she was found credible, the law does not require corroboration of her evidence. Other contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that though Meena Devi stated to have lost her earring at the hands of the appellant, no scratch was found on the ear by the doctor who clini-cally examined her. My attention has also been drawn to that part of evidence of Sudheshwari Devi, PW 1, where she states to have been informed by the prosecutrix about appellant removing her earring and also water pot. The Investi-gating Officer has not been examined by the trial Court and hence these part of statements of Sudheshwari Devi, PW 1, which was sought to be impeached by the defence could not be confronted by the police who recorded statement of the prosecutrix. Even Tabali Paswan, PW 4, who was the first person to meet the prosecutrix does not state about prose-cutrix informing him about appellant removing her ear ring. Even Tabali Paswan, PW 4, who was the first person to meet the prosecutrix does not state about prose-cutrix informing him about appellant removing her ear ring. Yet it is urged that since occurrence took place at 7.30 p.m., the appellant was not expected to have been identified by the prosecutrix in the darkness. The State counsel would urge that since appellant was the villager and was known to the prosecutrix, identi-fication of the appellant, even in darkness was not impossibility. Other argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that though occurrence took place in the evening of 26th July, 1989, it was not before 27th July, 1989 that the police was informed by the prosecutrix and for belated prosecution there has been no sufficient explanation on behalf of the State. However, I may say that it is reflected from the statement of none else but the prosecutrix that since night had set in and she was scared, she did not take recourse to police and hence there is sufficient explanation for belated prosecution. 8. Last argument was that since appellant has suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for about 14 years and was sufficiently old, in case finding of guilt was upheld, these mitigating circumstances may be taken into consideration while awarding sentence to him. Though appellant took defence of enmity also and it was pleaded at trial that since appellant had constructed a house despite resistance made by villagers including the husband and the prosecutrix, he was falsely implicated but barring examination of DW1 who made some bald statement about there being enmity between the parties, no document was placed on the record to persuade the Court to believe that any application was filed by the husband of the prosecutrix resisting construction of the house by the appellant on gairmazarua land. The trial Court has considered evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and has rightly recorded finding of guilt against the appellant under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and for the infirmities that has crept in the prosecution case about removal of earring from the person of the prosecutrix, finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court under Sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. 9. 9. Having given my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences placed on the record and also circum-stances of the case, finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also the sentence awarded against the appellant who has remained in custody for about 19 months did not call for interference. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed.