Judgment :- An appeal by the first accused in a case of rape, who along with the second accused stood charged and tried under Ss 376, 366, 506(ii), 376 read with 511 and 324 of I.P.C. and found guilty under Ss 324 and 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months S.I. under Sec.324 of IPC and 7 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo 3 months S.I. under Sec.376 of IPC, while the second accused has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) P.W.1 Saraswathi, the victim of sexual violence, aged about 20 years, was a resident of one K.Aadur Village. The appellant/first accused belonged to Keezhnatham, a nearby Village. A-2 was friend of A-1. Two years prior to the occurrence, the victim's brother Balusamy kidnapped A-1's relative namely Suganthi and married her. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant, on 1.6.2001, when P.W.1 was coming from Chidambaram, where she was employed, to her native to meet her parents, at about 5.30 P.M., the appellant stopped her, took her to the place of occurrence and committed sexual assault against her will. Then, he took her to the house of A-2 at Keezhnatham Village, and with the assistance of A-2 he detained her till next day namely 2.6.2001. On 2.6.2001 at about 2.00 P.M., A-1 took P.W.1 to K.Aadur Village and again attempted to commit rape on her. P.W.1 resisted the same. When she made an attempt to escape, the appellant attacked her with a knife on her face and caused injuries. However, P.W.1 managed to escape from there. At about 8.00 P.M. P.W.1 lodged a complaint marked as Ex.P1 to P.W.8 Palanisamy, Sub Inspector of Police, Chidambaram Taluk Police Station. On the strength of Ex.P1 complaint, the Sub Inspector registered a case in Crime No.148/2001 under Ss 341, 342, 324 and 376 of I.P.C. Ex.P7 printed F.I.R. was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court. P.W.8 recovered M.Os.1 and 2 clothes worn by P.W.1 at the time of the occurrence under Ex.P8 mahazar. He took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 2.6.2001 at about 11.55 P.M., P.W.2 Dr.Raman examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. P.W.8 recovered M.Os.1 and 2 clothes worn by P.W.1 at the time of the occurrence under Ex.P8 mahazar. He took up the investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 2.6.2001 at about 11.55 P.M., P.W.2 Dr.Raman examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate. (b) On 3.6.2001 at about 6.30 A.M., P.W.8 proceeded to the site of occurrence and prepared Ex.P9 observation mahazar in front of the witnesses and Ex.P10 rough sketch also. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. At 10.00 A.M., he arrested A-2 and sent him for remand. On 4.6.2001, P.W.8 sent P.W.1 to the hospital through P.W.6 Krishnaveni, a Woman Constable for medical examination as per the orders of the Court. On 4.6.2001, at about 11.45 A.M., P.W.1 was examined by P.W.11 Dr.Gomathi and Ex.P18 medical certificate was issued. On 5.6.2001 at about 10.00 A.M., P.W.8 arrested A-1 and recorded his confessional statement voluntarily made by him. The admissible part of the confessional statement is marked as Ex.P12. Pursuant to the said confession, A-1 produced M.Os.3 and 4 dress worn by him at the time of occurrence and M.O.5 knife. The same were recovered under Ex.P13 mahazar in front of P.W.5 Rajavelu and other witness. A-2 was for judicial custody. All the material objects recovered both from the victim and from the accused namely M.Os.1 to 5 were sent for chemical examination by the Judicial Magistrate on the request by P.W.8. P.W.7 Srinivasan, Scientific Assistant, analysed M.Os.1 to 5 and issued Exs.P5 and P6 certificates. On 6.6.2001 P.W.8 recorded statements from the witnesses and handed over the investigation to P.W.10 Poomalai, Inspector of Police on 21.8.2001. P.W.10 took up further investigation, examined P.Ws.2 and 11 Doctors and P.W.7 Expert and recorded their statements. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against both the accused. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 18 exhibits and 5 material objects. Both the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and they flatly denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 18 exhibits and 5 material objects. Both the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and they flatly denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court, on consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials available, recorded a conviction against the appellant/A-1 under Ss 324 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo the imprisonment and to pay the fine as referred to above, while the second accused was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved first accused has brought forth this appeal. 4. Advancing his arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant/A-1 made the following submissions for consideration by this Court: P.W.1 was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence. Her evidence was corroborated neither by the other evidence or even by P.W.3 her sister who turned hostile nor by the medical evidence adduced through P.Ws.2 and 11 Doctors. The evidence of P.W.11 Doctor, if analysed, would falsify the case of rape alleged by the prosecution. P.W.1 was examined by P.W.2 Doctor the very day. But, there was no complaint of rape made by her. She has clearly stated to P.W.2 Doctor that she was attacked by knife by a known person, and the same has also been recorded in Ex.P2 wound certificate. It remains to be stated that motive for the accused to commit the offence was the earlier crime committed by Balusamy, the brother of the victim, who kidnapped one of the close relatives of the accused. Apart from that, the said Balusamy has also witnessed his own sister being carried and taken away. Under such circumstances, one would expect the said Balusamy to approach the Police and complain about the same, but has not done so. This is exactly opposed to the human conduct. For the reasons best known, the prosecution has not examined the said Balusamy as a witness before the trial Court, and hence, an adverse inference should have been drawn by the trial Court. The Sub Inspector of Police without any authority whatsoever has proceeded with the investigation in a case of rape. This is exactly opposed to the human conduct. For the reasons best known, the prosecution has not examined the said Balusamy as a witness before the trial Court, and hence, an adverse inference should have been drawn by the trial Court. The Sub Inspector of Police without any authority whatsoever has proceeded with the investigation in a case of rape. From the evidence of the Inspector of Police, it would be clear that he did not empower the Sub Inspector of Police. While so, the lower Court should have found flaw in the investigation done by P.W.8 Sub Inspector. Though the case was registered at 8.00 P.M., the F.I.R. has reached the Court the next day morning, and thus, there was a delay of 8 hours. This when coupled with the other circumstances, would indicate that the case of the prosecution was false. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the lower Court should have acquitted the appellant/first accused from the charges levelled against him. 5. This when coupled with the other circumstances, would indicate that the case of the prosecution was false. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, the lower Court should have acquitted the appellant/first accused from the charges levelled against him. 5. Opposing all the contentions put forth by the appellant's side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the trial Court has well considered the evidence available before it and has found the appellant/A-1 guilty; that true it is that in the instant case, the said Balusamy was not examined, but in no way it has affected the case of the prosecution; that the prosecutrix who was aged 20 years at the time of the occurrence, has clearly narrated the entire incident that took place for about 24 hours, and even in the F.I.R., which preceded the medical examination by P.W.2 Doctor, she has averred everything clearly, and therefore, it leaves no doubt on the prosecution case; that it is true that the evidence of the victim was not corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness; that it remains to be stated that it is not the case of the prosecution that any one witnessed the sexual assault committed by the accused, and under such circumstances, the prosecution could not examine any one else except the victim, who has narrated the entire sorrowful occurrence; that it cannot be stated that there was any delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Court; that the case was registered in the night hours, and the F.I.R. has reached the house of the Magistrate the very next day morning by 7.00 A.M.; that this would indicate that without any delay the F.I.R. was forwarded to the Magistrate; that apart from that, a perusal of the records would indicate that there was no embellishment in the prosecution case, even if such delay is noticed, and under such circumstances, the lower Court was perfectly correct in recording the conviction under Ss 376 and 324 of IPC, and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be sustained. 6. On careful analysis of the evidence available and the thorough appraisement of the circumstance, the Court has to necessarily reject the plea of the appellant seeking for an acquittal. 7. In the instant case, P.W.1 victim, is sufficiently matured, since she was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence. 6. On careful analysis of the evidence available and the thorough appraisement of the circumstance, the Court has to necessarily reject the plea of the appellant seeking for an acquittal. 7. In the instant case, P.W.1 victim, is sufficiently matured, since she was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence. From her evidence, it would be abundantly clear that on the date of occurrence, she was returning from Chidambaram at about 5.30 P.M. towards her Village. On the way, the appellant/A-1 waylaid her, took her to the place of occurrence and committed the sexual assault on her at knife point. She was also brought to the house of A-2 at Keezhnatham Village, where she was kept in illegal custody for a day till 2.00 P.M. next day, and therefrom, she was brought to her Village where again an attempt of rape was made. There is clear narration of the entire incident by P.W.1 victim. On scrutiny of her evidence, the Court is able to see the graphic narration of the incident. It is true that she was examined by P.W.2 Doctor the very day. But, it remains to be stated that she approached the Police and gave a complaint under Ex.P1, on the strength of which a case was registered by P.W.8 Sub Inspector of Police at 8.00 P.M. itself even before the medical examination conducted by P.W.2 Medical Officer. A perusal of Ex.P1 complaint would clearly reveal that she has made clear averments narrating the entire incident, and hence, it can be stated that the victim, who was subjected to the sexual violence, has brought forth a clear narration of the incident in the earliest document under Ex.P1 and has also clearly deposed about the occurrence before the trial Court. Therefore, the lower Court was perfectly correct in accepting her evidence. The Court is unable to notice any reason or circumstance either to doubt or to disbelieve her evidence. 8. It is true that the prosecution has not brought forth corroborative piece of evidence by examining any independent witness. In the instant case, it was not the case of the prosecution that anybody else has witnessed the occurrence. But, the prosecution examined P.W.11 Doctor, who medically examined the victim P.W.1 and who gave a certificate under Ex.P18, mentioning the injuries on her. In the instant case, it was not the case of the prosecution that anybody else has witnessed the occurrence. But, the prosecution examined P.W.11 Doctor, who medically examined the victim P.W.1 and who gave a certificate under Ex.P18, mentioning the injuries on her. From the opinion of P.W.11 Medical Officer it would be clear that the hymen was not found ruptured, and in case of elastic hymen, no rupture can be found, and therefore, penetration was possible. It remains to be stated that the victim was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence. It can be well stated that the medical evidence stands in full corroboration to the evidence of the victim. The Court is of the considered view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the victim and the medical person would be suffice to find the appellant/A-1 guilty under Sec.376 of I.P.C. The lower Court has also found him guilty under Sec.324 of I.P.C. From the evidence of P.W.1, it would be clear that injuries were caused to her, and the same was also supported by the medical evidence adduced through P.W.2 Doctor who narrated the injuries found on her, and thus, the finding of the lower Court in respect of the charge under Sec.324 of I.P.C. does not require interference. Therefore, the Court is unable to see any substance in any or all of the contentions put forth by the appellant's side as stated above. The Court is of the firm view that on the evidence adduced, the lower Court was perfectly correct in recording a conviction that the appellant/A-1 has committed the sexual assault on P.W.1 at the time and place of occurrence, and apart from that, he has caused simple injuries to the victim. The Court does not find anything to interfere in the conviction passed by the lower Court. 9. Coming to the question of punishment, the lower Court has awarded 7 years R.I. to the appellant/A-1 for the offence under Sec.376 of I.P.C. The Court is unable to see any special reason so as to record the same and make reduction in the punishment given already. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower Court on the appellant/A-1 under Sec.376 of I.P.C. has got to be confirmed. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the lower Court on the appellant/A-1 under Sec.376 of I.P.C. has got to be confirmed. So far as the punishment for the offence under Sec.324 of I.P.C. is concerned, the trial Court has awarded 3 years R.I. to the appellant. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of 3 years R.I. has got to be reduced to 2 years R.I. 10. In the result, the sentence of 3 years R.I. imposed by the lower Court on the appellant/A-1 under Sec.324 of I.P.C. is modified, and the appellant/A-1 shall undergo 2 years R.I. under Sec.324 of I.P.C. In other respects, the judgment of the lower Court is confirmed. With the above modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.