JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dated 28th January, 2002 in S.B. Crl. Appeal No. 405/93. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order set aside the order of acquittal passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jalore dated 28th April, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 27/90. The trial court had acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376(2)(e), I.P.C. holding that the prosecution had failed to make out its case against the appellant. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order reversed the findings recorded by the trial court and held the appellant guilty, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for four months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16th January, 1990 at about 10 A.M. the prosecutrix Vadki (PW-1), a pregnant woman, along with her sister-in-law Morki (PW-8) and wife of her husband’s brother Poni (PW-2) went to collect cow dung in what is described as the jungle of Odwara. PW-1 has described it as a ‘jungle’, while PW-2 has described it as ‘Kokad’ which, we are told, means land covered by bushes. At about 10 A.M., the appellant is said to have appeared on the scene. While PW-1, the prosecutrix, was collecting cow dung, PW-2 and PW-8 were also collecting cow dung in different directions at a distance of 100-150 ft. away from the prosecutrix. The appellant felled the prosecutrix and after removing his clothes and those of the prosecutrix started committing rape. The prosecutrix raised a hue and cry which attracted PW-2 and PW-8 to the place of occurrence. They had also protested, but they were threatened by the appellant who was carrying an axe. It is the case of the prosecutrix that out of fear she could not do anything since the appellant was carrying an axe and threatened her. On seeing the occurrence, PW-2 and PW-8 rushed to their village and informed their mother/mother-in-law who came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to her house. It is the case of the prosecutrix that out of fear she could not do anything since the appellant was carrying an axe and threatened her. On seeing the occurrence, PW-2 and PW-8 rushed to their village and informed their mother/mother-in-law who came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to her house. On that day, the husband of the prosecutrix, Kheta (PW-10) was not in the village and returned the next day at about 11 A.M. The incident was narrated to him, whereafter he went to the Police Station Nosra where a report was lodged at 6 P.M. on 17th January, 1990. The prosecutrix was got examined by a doctor (PW-7) on 18th January, 1990. The appellant was arrested on 19th January, 1990 and was sent for medical examination on 20th January, 1990. The case of the prosecutrix is supported by the prosecutrix (PW-1) and also by two other eye witnesses, namely, PW-2 and PW-8. 3. The medical evidence disclosed that the prosecutrix had suffered injuries in the course of the occurrence. We have the evidence of the doctor (PW-7) who, on examination of the prosecutrix, found the following injuries : “1. Two abrasions in between the two thighs of the reddish colour of the size 1/2 x 1/6 and the other injury was there at a distance of 1/4 cm., away. 2. Abrasion having the reddish colour over which the scratch was present in the midst which was situated on the calf of right leg having the size of 1/2 x 1/3 c.m. 3. Abrasions with reddish colour, which were four in number, which were present there below the right knee and the size of abrasions was 1/4 x 1/2 cm, 1/4 x 1/4 cm., 1/2 x 1/2 cm., and 1/3 x 1/3 cm. 4. Roundish abrasion in reddish colour of the size of 1/4 x 1/4 cm., which was situated below the left knee anteriorly. 5. Abrasion of reddish colour of the size of 2/3 x 1/2 cm., above the left elbow. 6. Two abrasions having reddish colour of the size of 1/2 x 1/6 cm., present on the left parietal region. The internal wall of the vagina of Smt. Vadi was congested having reddish colour and libia minora was also congested and its hymen was absent.” 4. 6. Two abrasions having reddish colour of the size of 1/2 x 1/6 cm., present on the left parietal region. The internal wall of the vagina of Smt. Vadi was congested having reddish colour and libia minora was also congested and its hymen was absent.” 4. Having regard to the injuries found and other features noticed by him, he was of the opinion that it was possible that rape may have been committed on the prosecutrix. In cross-examination, he was questioned as to whether injury No. 1 could be self-inflicted and his answer was in the affirmative. Similarly, he admitted that injuries Nos. 3 and 4 could also be self-inflicted. In his opinion, the duration of all the injuries was within a period of 2-3 days. According to him, injuries Nos. 5 and 6 could also be self-inflicted. The inside wall of libia majora and vagina which was found to be congested could be possibly caused by sexual intercourse in normal course. He did not find any injury on the private parts, apart from what he noticed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the evidence. We have also carefully considered the reasoning of the High Court and we have come to the conclusion that no interference by us is called for. 6. We find that the trial court was unduly influenced by the fact that the occurrence took place in an open field and there was a ‘rasta’ nearby. In the opinion of the trial court, it was not possible to commit rape at such a location. The finding of the trial court is not supported by any evidence on record because the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that the place where the occurrence took place was a forest or at least a place where bushes were growing and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in jumping to the conclusion that it was an open field where the offence was committed. 7. The prosecutrix has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Much was sought to be made of the fact that no blood was found. We do not think in a case of this nature there could be possibility of any bleeding. The fact that the broken bangles were not found at the place of occurrence has been unduly exaggerated by the trial court to disbelieve the witness. Much was sought to be made of the fact that no blood was found. We do not think in a case of this nature there could be possibility of any bleeding. The fact that the broken bangles were not found at the place of occurrence has been unduly exaggerated by the trial court to disbelieve the witness. We find no good reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix when she has fully supported the case against the appellant. It is not suggested that she had any enmity with the appellant or there was any particular reason for her to involve the appellant in this offence. Some far-fetched disputes were sought to be highlighted, but there is nothing on record to suggest that the prosecutrix or her husband had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. 8. The trial court was also impressed by the fact that the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution. This is also a finding contrary to the record. Some simple injuries were caused to the prosecutrix when she was felled on the ground and raped. The abrasions found on her person certainly corroborate the case of the prosecution. The fact that abrasions may also be caused by self-infliction is no ground for holding that in this case they were so caused, when there is direct evidence to the effect that she was pushed on the ground and rape was committed. The fact that in his cross-examination the doctor admitted that such injuries may be self-inflicted, is no basis for holding that the injuries were in fact self-inflicted, in the absence of any evidence to prove that. This is particularly so when the case of the prosecution is clear and categorical that the appellant caught the prosecutrix by her neck and felled her on the ground and committed rape. We are, therefore, of the view that the medical evidence does support the case of the prosecution. The absence of any stains of semen on the clothes of the prosecutrix or the appellant is of no consequence in this case since the clothes of the appellant were seized and examined after four days of the occurrence. 9. The trial court has really not recorded any convincing reason for not accepting the testimony of PW-2 and PW-8. We have carefully perused their evidence. Their evidence appears to be natural having a ring of truth. 9. The trial court has really not recorded any convincing reason for not accepting the testimony of PW-2 and PW-8. We have carefully perused their evidence. Their evidence appears to be natural having a ring of truth. Much was sought to be made of minor discrepancies in the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, which have been described as glaring contradictions. Some variation in matters of detail is but natural, and much depends on the capacity of a witness to observe and remember events, particularly in matters of minor details. Moreover, the two witnesses came from two different directions, and they may have observed the incident at different stages, though in quick succession. However, such minor discrepancies, do not warrant rejection of their evidence. Their deposition is natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution and we find no reason why they should be disbelieved. 10. The trial court jumped to the conclusion that this may be a case of sexual intercourse with consent. We fail to understand how the trial court could have jumped to such a conclusion. In any event, even if this finding is taken as it is, it would completely go contrary to the findings earlier recorded by the trial court that such an occurrence had not taken place at all. In any event, the material on the basis of which the trial court came to this conclusion was hardly sufficient to probabalise that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. This finding is based solely on conjectures and suspicion. The medical evidence discloses that the internal wall of the vagina of the prosecutrix was congested having reddish colour. In his cross-examination, the doctor did state that this could be caused by sexual intercourse in ordinary course. From this, the trial court jumped to the conclusion that since the prosecutrix who was pregnant did not abort and gave birth to a normal healthy child after three months, this was a case in which it must be held that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. We fail to appreciate the reasoning of the trial court, and to say the least, it is perverse. We find that the findings of the trial court are not such as could be possibly reached on the basis of the evidence on record, much less can they be said to be a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record. We fail to appreciate the reasoning of the trial court, and to say the least, it is perverse. We find that the findings of the trial court are not such as could be possibly reached on the basis of the evidence on record, much less can they be said to be a possible reasonable view of the evidence on record. The High Court was, therefore, fully justified in setting aside the judgment and order of the trial court. 11. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeals dismissed. ***************