Judgment BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J. 1. About a week, preceding incident Kalawati Devi, the prosecutrix, (PW 7) had suffered a teeth bite for which she was treated. Allegedly, in the night of 9th August, 1994, the appellant visited her house, gave Rs. 10/- to her husband to bring rice from the shop, and taking opportunity of absence of husband of the prosecutrix, having allured the prosecutrix for herbal treatment, took her to a nearby bamboo orchard, where he violated her person, despite all resistance by the victim. After the prosecutrix met her husband, she narrated her woes to him who took the matter to the villagers who advised convention of panchayati for resolving the dispute. As appellant did not participate in panchayati, the matter was taken to public authority, and it is how that the police came into action after recording statement of prosecutrix at 17.30. on 11th August, 1994. As usual, investigation commenced, during which the police officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, got the prosecutrix examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether 15 witnesses. 2. The defence of the appellant both before the Court below and this Court had been that of plea of innocence and denial of accusation attributed to him. Suggestions were given to the witnesses about false implication of the appellant, with regard to dispute of some wages. However, defence had not chosen to examine any witness in defence of plea taken in course of trial. The trial Court, however, on consideration of evidences that were placed on behalf of the State, while negativing plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded verdict of guilt, finding appellant guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years on that count. 3. As has been noticed, the facts of the case are tell a tale. Reiterating herearliest version, Kalawati Devi, the prosecutrix (PW 7) stated at trial about appellant having visited her house, sent her husband to fetch rice from the shop, and having seized opportunity of absence of her husband took her to a nearby bamboo orchard on pretext of giving herbal treatment for teeth bite, which she had suffered a week back and sexually exploited her there. She states to have narrated her husband, shortly on her arrival to house, pursuant to which a panchayati was convened which did not materials as appellant did not participate in it. 4. I may take notice of evidence of Saryug Sharma, PW 1, who happens to be husband of the prosecutrix. He too stated that at about 8.00 p.m., the appellant visited his house and sent him to fetch rice on paymen of Rs. 10/- and pursuant thereto as was informed by his wife, he took her to a nearby bamboo orchard on pretext of herbal treatment of teeth bite and committed sexual assault on her. Moti Sharma, PW 5 and Bhagwati Devi, PW 6, stated to have learnt about incident from the prosecutrix about appellant having committed sexual assault on her. 5. Since much has been argued on behalf of the appellant about evidence of the doctor, it would be useful to take notice of the finding recorded by the doctor who having examined the prosecutrix, found that on microscopical examination, though no spermatozoa was found in vagina, hymen was found old torn, and from this finding doctor had drawn conclusion that the prosecutrix had been used for sexual intercourse since long. Though evidence of other witnesses are not of much significance, a brief resume of the features occurring in their evidences may be noticed. Shiv Narayan Yadav PW 2, Ravi Kant Yadav, PW 3, Khokha Mandal, PW 4, Subash Chandra Sharma, PW 8 and Subodh Kumar Sharma, PW 11, happen to be among those witnesses who were tendered, and there is nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration. Though Shiv Naryan Yadav, PW 2 was suggested to be the person who was firstly informed by the prosecutrix about incident, I shall avert to this aspect later on in the judgment. The host of witnesses examined by the State who are Mangan Sharma, PW 9, Ugan Sharma, PW 10, Mahanth Sharma, PW 12 and Amar Nath Yadav, PW 13 had turned volte face to the State and their attentions had been drawn by the State counsel towards their earliest statements rendered before the police to persuade Court to believe that those are not parallel to the evidence led at trial. Though Investigating Officer was not examined, the State examined one Awadh Kumar Tiwary, Sub-Inspector, PW 15, who it appears from his evidence, did not contribute in investigation and simply laid charge-sheet before the Court. 6. Commenting on admissibility of evidences of Moti Sharma, PW 5 and Bhagwati Devi, PW 6, learned counsel for the appellant urged that evidence of these who witnesses were not admissible for the reason that they had not witnesses incident. However, this fact cannot be lost sight of that the prosecutrix and also her husband state in their evidences about rendering information to villagers about incident, shortly after incident. True it is that these two witnesses did not happen to be ocular witness, they stated to have learnt about the incident from none else but prosecutrix and her husband and though these evidences are of ancillary nature, yet lends assurance to testimony of the prosecutrix and her husband. 7. Since occurrence took place on 9th August, 1994 and it was not before 12th August, 1994 that the prosecutrix was examined by the doctor, in view of belated clinical examination of the prosecutrix, the possibility of presence of spermatozoa in vagina would be extremely remote and as for commission of sexual assault, the doctor has recorded a finding that hymen was old torn and prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse since long. 8. The matter can be judged from another angle also. Since prosecutrix is mother of four children, factum of hymen being torn and prosecutrix being habituated to sexual intercourse since long, cannot be said to be unusual feature of the finding of doctor in clinical examination of the prosecutrix. Be that as it may, other limb of argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellant can also be noticed. Since prosecutrix is mother of four children, factum of hymen being torn and prosecutrix being habituated to sexual intercourse since long, cannot be said to be unusual feature of the finding of doctor in clinical examination of the prosecutrix. Be that as it may, other limb of argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellant can also be noticed. Taking the distance of the bamboo orchard from the house of the prosecutrix, submission made at bar was that considering the short distance between two places, had any alarm been raised by the prosecutrix that must should have been audible to the neighbours, I find that this aspect of the matter too has been considered by the trial Court which in backdrop of social status of the prosecutrix had come to the conclusion that the distance as stated by the prosecutrix and her husband between two places may be due to wrong assessment, and that apart, significance of this argument is completely lost for the reason that the prosecutrix alleges that shortly she was thrashed on the ground by the appellant and he gaged her mouth, and in that view of the matter, possibility of alarm became audible to the neighbours appears to be quite unusual. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 99 (SC); Vimal Suresh Kamble V/s. Chaluvera pinake Apal S.P. and taking the ratio of the decision, it is urged that the evidence of the prosecutrix too suffers major infirmity which makes her incredible and hence no finding of guilt can be recorded on solitary testimony of the prosecutrix. 9. However, I find that regard being had to the nature of accusation attributed to the appellant, in all cases, there may be no occasion for availability of the neighbours to witness the incident, and that apart, only for the reason that other witnesses have turned volte face to the State, the credibility of the prosecution case cannot be undermined devoid of significance of the evidence of the prosecutrix. The circumstances under which the appellant alluring her for herbal treatment for teeth bite took her to bamboo orchard cannot be said to be unusual feature, in the backdrop of rural scenario where people are not free from superstition. The circumstances under which the appellant alluring her for herbal treatment for teeth bite took her to bamboo orchard cannot be said to be unusual feature, in the backdrop of rural scenario where people are not free from superstition. I have considered evidence of the prosecutrix and I am of the opinion that her evidence was free from blemishes which did not suffer infirmity. In catena of decisions of this Court and also the Apex Court it has been reiterated time without numbers that the status of the prosecutrix was at par with the injured and there was no rule of law that solitary testimony of the prosecutrix should not be given credence by the Court, if it was free from blemishes and it bears ring of truth. The facts of the case cited at bar were not identical to the instant case, as in that case it was noticed that the evidence of the prosecutrix was found not free from blemishes and her conduct too did not inspite confidence. It was noticed that shortly after the prosecutrix allegedly suffered sexual assault in a flat, she visited flat twice which was considered to be unusual, and that apart, even when the prosecutrix had met her husband, she did not narrate her woes to him. Since these unusual features had surfaced in the testimony of the prosecutrix, she was considered to be not credible by the Apex Court: The facts of the instant case would rather suggest that prosecutrix, shortly after incident narrated her woes to her husband, pursuant to which even panchaiyati was convened in which appellant did not participate. 10. Yet there is another feature of the case which cannot be overlooked. Though occurrence took place on 9th August, 1994 and it was not before 11th August, 1994 that the prosecutrix took recourse to public authority. Since the Investigating Officer was not examined at trial and quite a good number of questions remained unanswered, he Court has to gauge in the backdrop of attending circumstances of the case about belated action of the prosecutrix. The evidence of prosecutrix and her husband unerringly suggest that after matter was taken to the villagers, they advised them to convene a panchaiyati so that the matter can be sorted out without taking recourse to public authority. The evidence of prosecutrix and her husband unerringly suggest that after matter was taken to the villagers, they advised them to convene a panchaiyati so that the matter can be sorted out without taking recourse to public authority. However, since appellant did not participate in the panchaiyaiti finding no option, villagers advised prosecutrix to take the matter to the police and the explanation for belated action can well be noticed in these circumstances. As for quantum of sentence, I find that there did not appear to be any mitigating circumstances even to reduce quantum of sentence awarded to him. 11. Having bestowed my anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences placed on the record, I find that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court was just and proper and there was not even little scope for interference, and hence while upholding the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, advocate who appears as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant to assist the Court, shall receive his remuneration from the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee.