JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.:-The Court of 8th Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur by judgment dated 27-1-1998 in Sessions trial No. 248/1996 convicted appellant for commission of offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month. The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction. 2. The case of prosecution is that prosecutrix Sushilabai Yadaorao Pimple (P.W. 1) went to Police Station, M.I.D.C., Nagpur on 11-9-1996 at noon and lodged report Exhibit 13 giving full narration of the incident of rape committed by the appellant on her. She supported her version in F.I.R. Exhibit 13 in her examination in the Court. It is stated by her that on 11-1-1996 around 11.00 a.m. she had gone for answering call of nature on the bank of Nallah which is situated near the premises of the company, where the complainant was working. The appellant came from her backside when she was in sitting position and answering the call of nature and he stood in front of her for passing urine. She asked the appellant as to whether it was proper for him to do so. She then went aside and sat for answering call of nature. The appellant, however came near to that place from her backside and caught hold her while she was in sitting position. She shouted for help. Thereupon the appellant caught hold her throat and tried to shut her month with his hand. The appellant caught hold her by both hands and lifted her and dashed on the ground. The appellant lifted her sarees. He caught hold both of her hands by his hand then he removed her underwear. He also removed his pant and underwear and lied on her body. The accused then had sexual intercourse with the complainant against all resistance offered by her and then accused ran away from there. According to the complainant when she felt discharge of semen she felt and realised that the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with her. 3. On her report Exhibit 13 offence was registered vide C.R. No. 7/1996 against the appellant by the Police Inspector Vasant Sayam (P.W. 6) who was then attached to Police Station, M.I.D.C. Nagpur. He went to the spot of occurrence and prepared spot panchanama Exhibit 15. 3. On her report Exhibit 13 offence was registered vide C.R. No. 7/1996 against the appellant by the Police Inspector Vasant Sayam (P.W. 6) who was then attached to Police Station, M.I.D.C. Nagpur. He went to the spot of occurrence and prepared spot panchanama Exhibit 15. He seized clothes of prosecutrix namely her blouse, petty-coat and nicker and another piece of pair of ear ring under seizure memo Exhibit 24. From the place of occurrence he also seized one piece of earring and pieces of bangle. The prosecutrix was referred to hospital for examination. She was examined by the Doctor Makode ( P.W. 9) who was then working as lecturer in Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. He issued certificate Exhibit 42 in respect of his examination and findings. He did not notice any evidence or proof over her body as also on her private part. He did not find any injury over her vagina. He collected pubic hair, vaginal swab and blood sample of the prosecutrix. Accused was arrested on the same day at about 22.35 hours and he was sent for medical examination. He was examined by Dr. Wankhede (P.W. 7) and issued certificate Exhibit 28 noting therein the injuries which he found on the person of appellant. He noticed two external injuries out of which the first injury was contused abrasion over media aspect of left fore arm 3 inches above wrist joint ¼" x ¼" reddish brown. The second injury was comprised of three scratch abrasion over right side of neck 2" below mastoid, ¼" in length with brownish scab present. In his opinion there was nothing suggestive that the appellant was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. But he did not find any injury on his private part. Investigating Officer seized clothes of the appellant namely fullpant-article 4 and full shirt Article 5 in panchanama Exhibit 37, and the articles seized were sent to Chemical Analyser for examination. He then sent all the seized property to the Chemical Analyser for examination. The report of the Chemical Analyser is at Exhibit 38. After completing investigation charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant in the Court of C.J.M., Nagpur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. He then sent all the seized property to the Chemical Analyser for examination. The report of the Chemical Analyser is at Exhibit 38. After completing investigation charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant in the Court of C.J.M., Nagpur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. Before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the charge vide Exhibit 4 was framed for offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses including prosecutrix-Sushila, Sanjay Ukey- P.W. 2 who acted as panch witness, Sarita (P.W. 3) who happens to be co-wife of prosecutrix and to whom the prosecutrix immediately after the occurrence when she returned to the company premises, disclosed about the incident that took place wherein she was sexually assaulted and rape was committed by the appellant on her, P.W. 6 Vasant Sayam Investigating Officer, Dr. Wankhede (P.W. 7) and Dr. Makods (P.W. 9) who examined prosecutrix. The sum and substance of prosecution witnesses and also statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, is that the prosecutrix was taking tea at the tea stall run by the appellant at the premises of company and that the appellant has given credit to her and that he was demanding the amount due from her towards the charges of tea taken by her from time to time and that the prosecutrix and witnesses conspired together as prosecutrix got annoyed due to demand of money by the appellant from her and therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepting the evidence of prosecutrix coupled with the conduct exhibited by her in disclosing to witness- Sarita and Sanjay about the commission of rape on her by the appellant and reporting the matter to police by lodging complaint -Exhibit 13 and finding that the defence put up by the appellant was unbelievable found the appellant guilty for offence under section 376 I.P.C. and consequently the appellant came to be sentenced as stated earlier. 5. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of Mr. Loney the learned A.P.P. who made his submission in this matter. 5. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of Mr. Loney the learned A.P.P. who made his submission in this matter. He submitted that the trial Court has rightly accepted the evidence of prosecutrix in correct perspective and it was found to be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for committing offence of rape, even in the absence of any injury on the person of the prosecutrix as well as on private parts of the appellant. He submitted with emphasis that the prosecutrix is a married woman. The defence putforth by the appellant-accused that because of demand of amount of credit the appellant came to be involved falsely for offence of committing rape is ex facie improper and unbelievable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the prosecutrix was married woman and that there was no enmity or any reason for the prosecutrix to involve the appellant falsely. He submitted that the prosecutrix being married woman absence of injuries on her private part is possible, though the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. He also submitted that the defence of the appellant is that of total denial. In view of this, there is no scope to infer even that the prosecutrix was consenting party for appellant to have sexual intercourse with her. That apart manner in which the prosecutrix has stated in her evidence about the occurrence as also immediate conduct in disclosing to witnesses Sarita and Sanjay about the occurrence and immediately apprehending the appellant while he was found present by the premises of the company and then assaulting him by the prosecutrix and the person accompanying her, clinchingly goes to show that the prosecutrix was not a consenting party. He therefore, submitted that the trial Court was right in convicting the appellant for the offence of committing rape. 6. Before going to consider the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, it would be appropriate to get acquainted with the legal position in pursuance of the law laid down by the Apex Court. He therefore, submitted that the trial Court was right in convicting the appellant for the offence of committing rape. 6. Before going to consider the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, it would be appropriate to get acquainted with the legal position in pursuance of the law laid down by the Apex Court. In this decision of the Apex Court in 2002(9) S.C.C. 86 (State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra and another respondents)1, the respondent was convicted by the trial Court for commission of offence under section 376 on a married, but the High Court acquitted them of the offence and the State has preferred appeal to the Apex Court. The Apex Court set aside the acquittal and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court against the respondent was maintained. In that case it was found that as per the C.A. Report there was presence of blood and semen stains on the articles including petty-coat. With regard to injuries found on her private parts, the High Court observed that there was evidence as to how long before and after the alleged offence, husband of the prosecutrix was absent and the possibility of her sexual contact with her husband could not be ruled out. The High Court also took note of the statement made in cross-examination of the Doctor that the injury could be self inflicted. It was also observed that possibility of semen on the part of her husband could not be ruled out. It was also found that there was infirmity in the prosecution case as her neighbour who was alleged to have reached towards her house after she had raised cries and when the accused ran away was not examined as witness. The Apex Court however, found that the High Court gave no importance to the report of Chemical Analyser and serologist which showed blood and semen stains on the petty-coat of the prosecutrix. The Apex Court found that the High Court had ventured into a wild surmise that the injuries found on her private part could not have been self inflicted. The Apex Court found that it was most unlikely that only to falsely implicate, the prosecutrix would inflict injuries on her private part. The Apex Court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix appeared to be truthful and trustworthy being without any embellishments and exaggeration. The Apex Court found that it was most unlikely that only to falsely implicate, the prosecutrix would inflict injuries on her private part. The Apex Court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix appeared to be truthful and trustworthy being without any embellishments and exaggeration. She was corroborated by her immediate and subsequent conduct as also the medical evidence. The prosecutrix was neither a woman of easy virtue nor having any grudge or reason to falsely implicate the accused. It was also found by the Apex Court that no material has been brought by the accused that the prosecutrix had any grudge or reason, falsely implicate the respondent in such a heinous crime in which she was herself was ravished and her honour was at stake. It is therefore, necessary to take into consideration the immediate subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix which is a married woman and also medical evidence which lends corroboration to the solitary version of the prosecutrix in respect of the charge of commission of rape by the accused. 7. In the recent decision of the Apex Court in 2003 Bom.C.R.(Cri.) (S.C.)1325, (Vimal Suresh Kamble Appellant v. Chaluverpinakeapal S.P. and another)2, the original accused were tried for offence of committing rape under section 376 I.P.C. and trial Court convicted the original accused No. 1 for the said offence and the High Court in appeal reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Apex Court while considering the appeal preferred by the complainant though dismissed the appeal observed that conviction on the basis of sole testimony of prosecutrix is permissible provided the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as the evidence of the prosecutrix was found to be not of that quality and there was no other evidence on record which could have even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. 8. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as the evidence of the prosecutrix was found to be not of that quality and there was no other evidence on record which could have even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. 8. In the decision reported in 2001(9) S.C.C. page 452 (Dilip and another v. State of M.P.)3, the Apex Court though allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused who were convicted for offence under section 376 stated that it is well settled that the prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made the basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present in the mind of the judge. 9. In the recent judgment in 2003 All.M.R. (Cri.) 1401 (S.C.) (Visveswaran v. State Represented by S.D.M.)4, the Apex Court observed that-Rape cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity. Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge of rape. In such cases the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the courts are not to swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required to be kept in view that every defective investigation need not necessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, the only requirement is of extra caution by courts while evaluating evidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as a result of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. 10. The Apex Court in J.T. 2003(3) S.C. 516 (State of Karnataka Appellant v. Krishnappa Respondent)5, observed that sexual violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity it degrades and humiliates the victim. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity it degrades and humiliates the victim. The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity 11. In 2002 Cri.L.J. 2951 (State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash)6, the Apex Court observed that-Evidence of victim was not unreliable There was no valid reason to discard the evidence of the doctor. The cases involving sexual molestation and assault require a different approach a sensitive approach and not an approach which a Court may adopt in dealing with a normal offence under penal laws. Before the Apex Court it was sought to be suggested that there were some disputes between the accused and the father of the prosecutrix over exchange of some land and that is the reason for their implicating the accused. The Apex Court found that there was nothing reliable on the record to substantiate that aspect. No such suggestion was put in cross-examination of the father of the prosecutrix. Therefore, the Apex Court on the facts of the case at hand, found that it could not be said that the revenge on account of alleged dispute regarding exchange of land would be taken by the father of the prosecutrix by foisting on the accused a false case of rape involving his young daughter. The Apex Court also observed that sympathy sought on the ground that the incident took place about 13 years back and by now the accused has matured and around 31 years of age and had already undergone nearly three years of sentence would be wholly uncalled for. 12. This Court in 2000(5) Bom.C.R. (P.B.)673, (Siddharth Atchutrao Sawant Appellant v. State of Maharashtra Respondent)7, while dealing with the appeal against conviction for offence under section 376 wherein rape was committed on prosecutrix observed that-While recording contradiction it is the duty of the Court to verify the former statement and to compare the same with the statement made before the Court to ascertain whether the two statement are readily contradictory to each other. A mere statement of additional fact in the course of evidence cannot amount to contradictions by itself unless the same is material and relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the decision in the matter. 13. A mere statement of additional fact in the course of evidence cannot amount to contradictions by itself unless the same is material and relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the decision in the matter. 13. Though this appeal was adjourned from time to time as Counsel for the appellant appointed. Mr. Bhat did not appear, this appeal is decided on merits on the basis of ground raised in the appeal memo. The sum and substance of the contents is that the prosecution story regarding the incident of rape by the appellant on the prosecutrix Sushilabai is not probable and possible in the given circumstance. The place of occurrence was on the backside of the company and if the prosecutrix, and if the prosecutrix, as stated by her had raised shouts when the appellant forcibly committed rape on her, attention of persons working in the company would have been attracted. But no such person has been examined as prosecution witness to support the claim of prosecutrix. It is also contended that there is glaring inconsistency in the report Exhibit 23 and the evidence of prosecutrix before the Court. It is further contended that Doctor who examined the prosecutrix did not find any injury on her person and he has opined that no definite opinion could be given whether rape was committed. Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix falsifies her claim that she was thrashed on the ground by the appellant and still did not sustain any injury because of bushes and thorns. The witness Sanjay (P.W. 2) in his evidence claimed that on both hands of Sushilabai there were bleeding injuries and there were thorn injuries on her both hands and back which is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence wherein the doctor has said that no injury was found on her person. It is contended that the trial Court did not take into consideration the fact that the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Because it was possible as the prosecutrix and the witness- Sanjay doubted that the appellant might have been seen them together in some odd position. It is contended that the claim of the prosecutrix and witness Sarita that appellant when was found coming towards the company was caught by persons. Because it was possible as the prosecutrix and the witness- Sanjay doubted that the appellant might have been seen them together in some odd position. It is contended that the claim of the prosecutrix and witness Sarita that appellant when was found coming towards the company was caught by persons. Who were there and he was given beating is not probable when in fact after the appellant had committed rape on the prosecutrix in all probabilities would not have gone to the premises of the company. It is contended that the trial Court has grossly arred in ignoring the material circumstance that neither semen nor spermatozos was detected on swab taken from the vagina of P.W. 1- Sushilabai which clearly points out the innocence of the appellant and at the same time makes doubtful the version of the prosecutrix that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her. 14. The prosecutrix- Sushilabai before the Court deposed that while she had gone for answering call of nature on the backside of the company where she is working the appellant came from her backside and stood in front of her for passing urine and when she asked him as to whether that was proper and then she went to aside, but the appellant came near her and from her backside caught hold her hand and when she shouted the appellant caught hold her throat and shut her mouth by placing his hand and then he caught hold her by both hands and lifting her, dashed her on the ground and then he lifted her saree and made her immobile by holding her both hands and he removed her underwear by his hand and after removing his pant slept on her body and had sexual intercourse with her and after having satisfied his lust he got up and ran away from there. She immediately came to the company and narrated the incident to the persons disclosing the fact that the appellant committed rape on her. The persons whom she narrated the incident included Vijay, Sanjay Bhajan and witness-Sarita and other woman. In her evidence she stated further that time the accused was passing from the company and these persons whom she disclosed about the commission of rape by appellant caught hold the appellant and he was beaten by her with her chappal. The persons whom she narrated the incident included Vijay, Sanjay Bhajan and witness-Sarita and other woman. In her evidence she stated further that time the accused was passing from the company and these persons whom she disclosed about the commission of rape by appellant caught hold the appellant and he was beaten by her with her chappal. She has stated that she went to the Police Station and lodged report Exhibit 13. 15. She was subjected to cross-examination by defence at length .But except denial, on material particulars her evidence remained undisturbed. It is true that defence has brought some omissions in her evidence which are to some extent inconsistent with her claim in the report Exhibit 13 and also with her evidence in her examination-in-chief but those contradictions are not on material particulars. These omissions are found to be very insignificant and in my opinion no weight could be attached to them and no infirmity is brought in her testimony In her report-Exhibit 13 which she lodged immediately though she did not state about the fact of beating the appellant when he was found coming towards company she did state in the report Exhibit 13 the factum of incident of rape to the persons and her husband who was in the company. In addition to that in the report Exhibit 13 she has consistently stated about the incident of rape committed by the appellant. Therefore, her evidence as it stands is truthful and implicit reliance can be placed can be placed on it. 16. The witness-Sayam (P.W. 2) has stated in his evidence that sushilabai had gone to answer call of nature and she returned weeping on the site of work and told him that appellant Kanchan had committed "GaatVyawahar" i.e. raped on her. He further stated that in his presence spot panchanama was made by police and some articles including the one earring and pieces of bangles were seized. This witness is an independent witness. Admittedly this witness was knowing the complainant as well as the caused. This was because this witness was also working in the company where the appellant was running the tea-stall. Though this witness was subjected to cross examination on material particulars his evidence remained unshaken. In my opinion his evidence is relevant only in respect of disclosure made by Sushilabai to him when she reached to the place weeping. This was because this witness was also working in the company where the appellant was running the tea-stall. Though this witness was subjected to cross examination on material particulars his evidence remained unshaken. In my opinion his evidence is relevant only in respect of disclosure made by Sushilabai to him when she reached to the place weeping. This according to me immediate natural conduct of the prosecutrix when she made disclosure to this witness about the occurrence of commission of rape on her by the appellant. The fact that the complainant immediately then went to the Police Station and lodged report Exhibit 13 disclosing the factum of rape committed by the appellant on her at the place and time stated in the report lends assurance to the claim of this witness before the Court. 17. It is true that this witness has stated that there were thorny injuries on her both hands and back and she was bleeding. This is inconsistent with medical evidence in as much Doctor did not find any injury on her person. This witness has also stated that pieces of bangles were seized from the place of occurrence. This fact is not consistent with the admission of the prosecutrix Sushilabai wherein she had stated that her bangles were not broken. It is also material to note that the pieces bangles seized have not been identified by Sushilabai as her bangles Therefore, though the claim of witness. Sanjay that pieces of bangles were seized from the place of occurrence is correct that does not falsify the claim of the prosecutrix that her bangles were not broken. The trial Court has observed that the place of occurrence was accessible to any one and therefore, there is nothing impossible to have pieces of bangles lying in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. Similarly, the statement of witness Sanjay that the prosecutrix had bleeding injuries on her hands is incorrect statement having regard to medical evidence on record. But that by itself does not falsify the basic claim as to the factum of rape committed on the victim as disclosed by the witness-Sanjay in other words the evidence of witness Sanjay can not be discredited because of incorrect statement made by him in his evidence. 18. But that by itself does not falsify the basic claim as to the factum of rape committed on the victim as disclosed by the witness-Sanjay in other words the evidence of witness Sanjay can not be discredited because of incorrect statement made by him in his evidence. 18. There is evidence of witness-Sarita (P.W. 3) she has stated that Sushilabai had gone for answering call of nature behind the company and back side of the place where they were doing work and she returned back after half an hour and she was weeping and when she came near the gate of the company called the people by shouting and she was saying that the accused had committed rape on her. She pointed out the accused who committed rape on her by uttering words "TO CHALALA PAHA". She further stated that Sushila and people caught hold the appellant and Sushila given 2-3 blows with chappal to the appellant. The appellant jerked and ran way from there. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. But on material particulars there is no challenge specifically by the defence. The suggestions put to this witness have been stoutly denied. Her presence on the place where Sushilabai came is not disputed, what is significant is that the fact that Sushilabai disclosed to this witness that the appellant committed rape on her at the place where she had gone for answering call of nature is not specifically controverted by the defence. Even the fact that witness-Sushila had gone for answering call of nature is not disputed. The fact that the appellant was beaten by Sushilabai is not controverted. Therefore, there is reason to accept the evidence of this witness. The trial Court has accepted her evidence rightly. Accepting her evidence, it lends assurance to the claim of the prosecutrix Sushilabai. 19. Much has been made about the negative finding by Medical Officer-Dr. Makode when he examined prosecutrix. It is true that he had stated that no evidence of any abrasion over her body and also on private part. But that by itself is not sufficient to discard her claim. It is to be borne out that the prosecutrix was a married woman It goes without saying that even if there was forcible intercourse, it is not necessary that in each and every case there would be injury on private part of the victim. But that by itself is not sufficient to discard her claim. It is to be borne out that the prosecutrix was a married woman It goes without saying that even if there was forcible intercourse, it is not necessary that in each and every case there would be injury on private part of the victim. Therefore, absence of injuries by itself is not a circumstance falsifying claim of the prosecutrix rape was committed on her 20. It is true that neither semen nor spermatozoa has been detected in the swab collected by Medical Officer when she was examined .But that by itself is not sufficient to discard her evidence when it is found that her evidence is truthful and other circumstances leads assurance to her evidence 21. So far as involvement of the appellant is concerned there is strong circumstance of finding of semen on Article 3 which is underwear (Jangya) of the prosecutrix and as per the report of the Chemical Analyser it is of "O" group. As per the report of Chemical Analyser the blood group of blood of accused is also of "O" group and the appellant has not explained about the finding of semen of blood group "O" on the undergarments of the prosecutrix. In my opinion, finding of semen of the blood group "O" which is blood group of the appellant is a circumstance showing complicity of the appellant in commission of crime. 22. The evidence of prosecutrix, coupled with the evidence of witness Sanjay and Sarita and circumstantial evidence of finding semen of same blood group as that of blood group of the appellant clinchingly established that the appellant committed rape the prosecutrix. The trial Court has been falsely implicated as he demanded the amount of credit of tea taken by the prosecutrix from his stall. This suggestion by the defence basically does not stand to reason as in the nature of things no married woman would level such charge of commission of rape on her for such reasons of enmity and hatred at the stake of her character. The trial Court has committed no error in holding the appellant guilty for offence under section 376 I.P.C. as also sentencing him to imprisonment and fine as stated earlier. There appears no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----