Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 81 (HP)

Dabe Ram v. State of H. P.

2003-04-17

M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT : M.R. Verma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.11.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi whereby the appellant/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') has been convicted under section 376 and 506 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 376 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorops imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 506. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 1.11.2001 the prosecutrix (PW-3), aged about 12 years, along with her father (PW-4) and other family members, had gone to attend a fair at Gagan. After attending the fair, in the evening, they went to the house of Chet Ram (PW-7), husband of Purnu Devi elder sister of PW-4.Rukmani Devi (PW-8) younger sister of PW-4 and her husband the accused were also present in the house of PW-7. Some of trial Children of the aforesaid persons including Peti Devi (PW-9), the accused, his wife Rukmani Devi (PW-8), Tele Devi, sister of the prosecutrix, Chet Ram (PW-7) and Purnu Devi, slept in one room in the upper storey of the house and PW-4, his wife Chamelo Devi (PW-5), and others slept in a room in the lower story. During the night, the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix and her father (PW-4) and mother Chamelo Devi (PW-5) learnt about the occurrence at about 3.30 a.m. In the meantime, the accused had run away. The prosecutrix was examined by her mother and it was noticed that her clothes were stained with blood and blood was oozing from her private parts. The efforts to search out the accused were made and PW-4 even went, to the house of the accused but he was not traceable. Thereafter the occurrence was reported to police by the prosecutrix accompanied by PW-4 on 3.11.2001 where on F.I.R. Ext. PS was recorded at police Station. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Renu Behl (PW-2), who issued the Medico Legal Certificate Ext. PH and opined that the prosecutrix as exposed to coitus. Thereafter the occurrence was reported to police by the prosecutrix accompanied by PW-4 on 3.11.2001 where on F.I.R. Ext. PS was recorded at police Station. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Renu Behl (PW-2), who issued the Medico Legal Certificate Ext. PH and opined that the prosecutrix as exposed to coitus. She also took into possession and sealed the nearing 'apparels of the prosecutrix and also preserved two slides and landed them over to the police for chemical examination. Opinion about the skeleton age of the prosecutrix was obtained and Dr. S.K. Malhotra (PW-1) Radiologist vide report Ext. PF opined that the prosecutrix was between 10 to 14 years of age. During investigation A.S.I. Subhash Chand (PW-14), who investigated the case, took into possession the shirt Ext. P-3 and 'Salwar' Ext. P-4 which the prosecutrix was wearing at the time of occurrence vide Memo Ext. PM. The accused was arrested on 5.11.2001 and was medically inned by Dr. Satya Vrat (PW-6), who issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. PK and opined that the accused was fit to perform sexual intercourse. He also took into possession and sealed the trousers the accused was wearing at the time of his medical examination and handed over the same the police and also preserved the public hairs of the accused. Subsequently the aforesaid clothes of the prosecutrix and the accused, the slides am pubic hairs were sent to the State Forensic Science laboratory for analysis Vide report Ext. PR, the Assistant Director of the said Laboratory opined the human blood was found on the shirts Exts. P-1 and P-3, Salwars Exts. P-and P-4 and the vaginal slides. However, no semen was detected therein No blood or semen was detected in the trouser and pubic hairs of the accused. Copy of the school Admission Register Ext. PN and copy of Certificate Ext. PO of the prosecutrix were also taken in possession by the Investigating Officer respectively from Prem Chand (PW-10) and Indian Chauhan (PW-11). On being satisfied of the commission of the offences under sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. by the accused, Prakash Chand (PW-15 the then S.H.O. police Station, but submitted the charge sheet against the accused. 3. A charge under sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. was framed again the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined 16 witnesses. 3. A charge under sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. was framed again the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecutor case and claimed to be innocent. It was further claimed that since his wife is not staying with him and the witnesses are inimical to him, therefore, a false case has been fastened upon him. Accused, however, did not lead am evidence in defence. 4. On consideration of the material on record, the learned trial in held the accused guilty of the commission of the offences punishable under section 376 and 506 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, hence, this appeal. 5. We had heard the learned counsel for the accused and the lean Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 6. It may be pointed out at the very outset that it is admitted cases the accused that after attending the fair, the prosecutrix, her sister Tela Devi and her parents had gone to the house of Chet Ram (PW-7) for stay and accused and his wife Rukami Devi (PW-8) had also gone there to stay for' the night. Thus the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence is in dispute but is admitted even in the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C. 7. It may also be pointed out that at the time of arguments, the date of birth and age of the prosecutrix at the relevant time, have not been disputed Even otherwise, in view of the unchallenged testimony of Prem Anand (PW-10) read with entries in the Admission and School leaving Register Ex. PN and Indira Chauhan (PW-11) read with birth certificate Ex. PO, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is proved to be 27.7.1989 and thus, at the relevant time, she was little more than 12 years but less than 13 years of age. 8. The learned counsel for the accused had assailed the impugned conviction on the following grounds : (i) The delay in lodging the FIR., (ii) the improvements made in the initial version as in the FIR., and (iii) the improbabilities in the prosecution version rendering the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix highly unbelievable and unreliable. Ground No. (i) 9. 8. The learned counsel for the accused had assailed the impugned conviction on the following grounds : (i) The delay in lodging the FIR., (ii) the improvements made in the initial version as in the FIR., and (iii) the improbabilities in the prosecution version rendering the uncorroborated statement of the prosecutrix highly unbelievable and unreliable. Ground No. (i) 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused is alleged to have committed the rape on the night intervening 1st and 2nd of November, 2001 and the parents of the prosecutrix had come to know of it at about 3.30 A.M., on 2.11.2001 whereas the FIR was lodged on 3.11.2001 at 12.45 P.m. Thus, there was delay of 21 hours in lodging the report which renders the prosecution vision a cooked up case to implicate the accused at the instance of PW-8 who had abandoned the house of the accused and did not want to live with him as his wife. The learned counsel referred to the statements of PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 to show that PW-8 had been quarrelling with the accused, and used to stay in the house of PW-7 and was not residing with the accused. It was, therefore, urged that PW-8, in conspiracy with others in the house, had falsely implicated the accused and consultations/deliberations in this regard led to delay in lodging the FIR. 10. The delay in lodging the FIR ipso facto is not fatal to a case. It will be so only when the delay in lodging the FIR is not reasonably and satisfactorily explained. In case the prosecution explains the delay and such explanation is reasonable and satisfactory, the delay in lodging the FIR will not be fatal to the prosecution case. In the case in hand, the FIR had been lodged after about 21 hours of the occurrence. However, this delay is duly explained. 11. The prosecutrix, at the time of commission of the crime, was a child of about 12 years. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, future prospects of marriage of the prosecutrix, the conceptions of the society and the relationship between the accused and the victim and her parents, nothing could be done hurriedly. 11. The prosecutrix, at the time of commission of the crime, was a child of about 12 years. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, future prospects of marriage of the prosecutrix, the conceptions of the society and the relationship between the accused and the victim and her parents, nothing could be done hurriedly. Father of the prosecutrix (PW-4) has explained the delay as follows : "At about 3.30 A.M. my wife was informed by my daughter and sister Rukamani and went outside. Then got up and then my daughter told me in presence of other persons that accused had committed rape with her while she was sleeping in the upper room. When came to know about the occurrence the accused had run away from the spot. My wife examined my daughter and found that the clothes of Banti Devi were stained with blood. In the morning my wife removed the clothes of my daughter and examined her she told me that my daughter had been raped and blood was coming out of her private pats. Thereafter started looking for the accused. We went to the house of accused but he was not found in his house. We kept on tracing the accused on the second day and it grew dark. From the place of occurrence, one has to travel for 2 hours, and then one has to travel for one and half hour by bus to reach the police station. came to lodge the report on 3.11.2001. Thereafter my daughter lodged the report at the P.S." 12. In the given circumstances, the aforesaid explanation given by PW-4 satisfactorily explains the delay in lodging the FIR. 13. It is admitted by PW-3 and PW-4 that the accused and his wife PW-8 had quarrels frequently and the latter used to visit her parents house frequently and presently she is residing in her parents house. PW-7 has also admitted that as and when going to her parents house, PW-8 sometimes would stay in his house but he is not aware of the strained relations between the two. PW-8 has also admitted that relations between her and the accused are not cordial since the occurrence and they are not living together for the last three years. PW-7 has also admitted that as and when going to her parents house, PW-8 sometimes would stay in his house but he is not aware of the strained relations between the two. PW-8 has also admitted that relations between her and the accused are not cordial since the occurrence and they are not living together for the last three years. It is admitted case of the parties that PW-8 was married to the accused about 12/13 years before, but she had not given birth to any child. This may be the cause of altercation between PW-8 and the accused. This, however, does not appear to be a cause for a wife to falsely implicate her husband in a grave offence. It is explained by PW-8 herself that she is not residing with the accused since the occurrence. In doing so, she is justified not only for the reason that her husband, the accused, indulged in the commission of rape but also for the reason that the victim is her brother's daughter. Otherwise, it is evident from the material on record that she had been residing in the house of accused as his wife till the time of occurrence. PW-8 has stated that at the relevant time, she had gone to attend the fair along with the accused and after the fair, both of them went to the house of PW-7. Accused has admitted having accompanied his wife (PW-8) to the house of PW-7. Had their relations been so strained as to falsely implicate the accused, she would not have been accompanying him as she did. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to suggest that PW-3 would act as advised by PW-8 and the parents of the prosecutrix would permit their daughter to play a role which would bring permanent stigma to her at the lender age of about 12 years. There is no suggestion in the cross examination of the material witnesses that the case has been engineered to implicate the accused at the behest of PW-8. Therefore, this cannot be a case of fabrication and concoction after consultations and deliberations to implicate the accused as contended. The delay in lodging the FIR stands duly explained and has no adverse bearing on the case of the prosecution. Ground No. (ii) 14. Therefore, this cannot be a case of fabrication and concoction after consultations and deliberations to implicate the accused as contended. The delay in lodging the FIR stands duly explained and has no adverse bearing on the case of the prosecution. Ground No. (ii) 14. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the version of the prosecutrix that when she was raped, the accused gagged her mouth and threatened her to be killed if she divulged the occurrence, is an improvement on the version as contained in the FIR Ex. PJ wherein it is not mentioned. It is in the FIR that the accused while committing rape had gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the contention that prosecutrix made an improvement about gagging of her mouth by accused is unfounded. It is, however, not in the FIR Ex. PJ that the accused had threatened the prosecutrix that in case she divulged the occurrence, she would be killed. 15. Be it stated that object of FIR is to set the law in motion. It cannot be treated as the last word of the prosecution regarding the case. The person who furnishes the first information, though maybe fresh with the facts but may not be skilled in reproduction of facts in a narration. The officer recording FIR may not resort to any elucidatory exercise. Therefore, it is narrative of the informant without elucidating facts which form the FIR. Therefore, while considering the omissions in the FIR, the circumstances of the case and the material on record cannot be ignored altogether, but the omission has to be appreciated in view of the evidence led at the trial. 16. FIR Ex. PJ was recorded on the basis of a statement made by a girl of about 12 years and initially it was recorded regarding commission, of an offence under section 376 IPC only. However, when supplementary statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, she divulged the factum of the teat having been given to her by the accused and thereafter offence under section 506 IPC, was added. Such a course is not unknown to or impermissible in law. FIR itself is not substantial evidence and during investigation, if further facts constituting an offence are found, those can be investigated and accused can be charged and tried for the offence as may be disclosed by such further facts. Such a course is not unknown to or impermissible in law. FIR itself is not substantial evidence and during investigation, if further facts constituting an offence are found, those can be investigated and accused can be charged and tried for the offence as may be disclosed by such further facts. At the trial, the accused did not confront tie informant (PW-3) either with the contents of FIR Ex. PJ or with the contents of the supplementary statement, therefore, the accused cannot now take benefit of the omission when the version about his having intimidated the prosecutrix as stated by her remains utterly unchallenged in her cross examination. Therefore, this contention is also of no help to the accused. Ground No. (iii) 17. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no corroboration of the statement of the prosecutrix and the prosecution version suffers from improbabilities. Elaborating the contention, the learned counsel submitted that so many persons including wife of the accused' were admittedly sleeping in the room and the prosecutrix was sleeping in between PW-8 and Pati Devi (PW-9). In such a situation, commission of rape as alleged is improbable. Admittedly, no blood was found in the bed sheet or bedding on which the prosecutrix was sleeping, and no semen was detected on her Salwars and the slides. The prosecutrix did not raise any hue and cry at the time of alleged commission of rape. There was darkness in the room and thus it could not be possible to identify the offender. The way out of the room led through the room on the lower storey, therefore, it was not possible for the accused to escape as alleged. It was, therefore, urged by the learned counsel that in view of these circumstances, the prosecution case is highly improbable rendering the statement of the prosecutrix unreliable and unworthy of any credence, more so, when it does not find corroboration from any other independent evidence. Therefore, contended the learned counsel, the accused could not have been convicted of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. 18. Therefore, contended the learned counsel, the accused could not have been convicted of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. 18. It may be pointed out that by now it is well settled that in cases involving sexual offences, the inferential considerations having no direct and material bearing on the evidence of the prosecutrix and discrepancies in her statement unless fatal to the case, should not be treated as grounds for discrediting confidence inspiring version of the prosecutrix. While appreciating the testimony of a victim of sexual molestation, it has to be borne in mind that no self respecting woman would come forward just to make a humiliating statement against their honour as in a rape case. It is more so, in the case of an unmarried girl. Therefore, there should be no difficulty to act on the statement of the prosecutrix who is not an accomplice but victim of the crime and conviction can be based on her confidence inspiring statement. In case the Court is hesitant to place full reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may take into account the other evidence which may lend assurance to her statement. 19. In case State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others 1996 Cr. L.J 1728 while dealing with the question of credence to be given to the statement of a prosecutrix in a rape case and the standard of corroboration required to sustain conviction on such statement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : "7.......... The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where here testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self inflicted, is considered to be good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield die real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be over looked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. It must not be over looked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of the victim of sex probable. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain ( 1990 (1) SCC 550 =( AIR 1990 SC 658 ) Ahmadi, J. (as the Lord Chief Justice then was), speaking for the Bench summarised the position in the following words: A prosecution of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim 1 of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicate reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicate reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence." It was further held as follows: "20. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." 20. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused, has, therefore, to be examined in view of the aforesaid settled position in law. The prosecutrix in her statement has fully supported the prosecution version and there is no compelling reason to disbelieve her statement which is otherwise corroborated by other evidence on the record. The prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-2 on 3.11.2001 at 3.15 P.M. an the MLC about such examination is Ext. PH. According to PW-2, at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix, she found that labia minor of the prosecutrix was reddish (congested) and painful on touch, her hymen was tom at 6 O' Clock position, four chette was tom and raddish in colour. PH. According to PW-2, at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix, she found that labia minor of the prosecutrix was reddish (congested) and painful on touch, her hymen was tom at 6 O' Clock position, four chette was tom and raddish in colour. Though no dead or alive sperms were seen but red blood cells were found in the swab taken from the posterior fomix of the vagina of the prosecutrix. One Bluish contusion was also found on the left cheek of the prosecutrix. As per the opinion of PW-2, the prosecutrix was exposed to coitus and the probable duration of the injures found on her person was within 48 hours. PW-2 has further clarified that it is not necessary that dead or alive spermatozoa will be found in the vagina after sexual intercourse. She has further stated that the injuries found on the private parts of the prosecutrix are not possible with fingering. As per the report received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory Ext. PR, the wearing apparels of the prosecutrix viz. 2 Salwars' 2 shirts, were found to contain human blood and blood was found in the vagina swab slides also. Thus, the medical evidence fully supports the version of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. 21. There is no dispute that during the night the accused was sleeping in the same room in which the prosecutrix was sleeping. It is not the case of the defence that the accused was not earlier known to the prosecutrix. Therefore, she could commit any mistake in identifying the accused as the rapist. The conduct of the accused in bolting away from the house after the commission of the offence and the conduct of the prosecutrix in narrating the occurrence to the wife of the accused and to her parents immediately after the occurrence, also lend credibility to the testimony of the prosecutnx. There is no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the offence. The statement of the prosecutrix thus is natural ana confidence inspiring and is further corroborated by other evidence. Therefore, the contention that there is no corroboration of the statement of the prosecutirx, is without any merit and substance. 22. There is no reason for the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the offence. The statement of the prosecutrix thus is natural ana confidence inspiring and is further corroborated by other evidence. Therefore, the contention that there is no corroboration of the statement of the prosecutirx, is without any merit and substance. 22. The improbabilities in the prosecution case as pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused do not go to the root of the case and are incapable of suspecting the otherwise believable statement of the prosecutrix. No doubt, a few persons including the wife of the accused were sleeping in the room where the offence was committed. It is, however, not in dispute that the inmates of the room had gone to the fair, attended it and came back to the house of PW-7 to stay there for the night. According to the prosecutrix, rape was committed around 3.00 a.m. in the night when those sleeping in the room must be fast asleep. It cannot, therefore, be said that in such a situation it was impossible to commit the rape. Non-detection of the blood in the bed-sheet and the bedding or semen in the 'Salwars' of the prosecutrix and slides is also no reason to render the prosecution case improbable. What is evident from the statement of the prosecutrix and the medical opinion is that there had been penetration which is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape irrespective of the fact that it might not be a complete act of sex. Similarly, there was no question of the prosdcutrix raising hue and cry when her mouth had been gagged by the accused. The material witnesses have stated that during the night there was light in the lower storey and the prosecutrix has also stated so and has further stated that that light enabled her to properly recognise the accused. It is true that the way out of the room wherein the offence was committed led through the room in the lower storey, however, this circumstance is not enough to hold that the accused could not escape after commission of the offence. It is stated by the prosecutrix that when the accused committed rape on her, she fell unconscious and by the time she regained her consciousness and narrated the occurrence, the accused had bolted away. It is stated by the prosecutrix that when the accused committed rape on her, she fell unconscious and by the time she regained her consciousness and narrated the occurrence, the accused had bolted away. Thus, there was no occasion for anyone to apprehend the accused before he made good his escape. Therefore, the circumstances allegedly rendering the prosecution version improbable, are incapable of demolishing the version of the prosecutrix. 23. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the statement of the prosecutrix is uncorroborated and the prosecution version suffers from improbabilities, is not sustainable. On the contrary, in view of the statement of the prosecutrix, her conduct in immediately disclosing the occurrence to PW-8, PW-4 and PW-5, conduct of the a accused running away from the place after the occurrence and the medical evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the commission of the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence do not call for any interference. 24. As a result, this appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.