JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J.:- The appellant Ranjay Singh has been convicted by the trial court under section 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.30,000/-, on default in payment of fine he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three years. The amount of fine on realisation is to be given to the victim Indu Devi. 2. According to the prosecution, the victim was raped by two persons, one Anil Singh and the appellant Ranjay Singh. The police submitted charge sheet against both the accused and consequently, both of them were put on trial but before the trial was over both the accused, two were on bail, absconded. The appellant was arrested and produced on the basis of the warrant of arrest issued by the Court. The case of the other absconding accused was then separated and the trial proceeded in regard to the appellant and in the end he was convicted and sentenced as noted above. Till the pronouncement of judgment in the case of the appellant, the other accused Anil Singh was at large and was not brought to book. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the victim Indu Devi at Imamganj police station on 29.12.1994 at 2 in the afternoon. In the F.I.R. she stated that early in the morning that day she had gone out in the direction of Dak Asthan for collecting cattle dung. Unable to find any dung she proceeded on the kutcha path going from Nakti to Basewa and arrived at to Dak Than Tanr. There she plucked twigs and small branches of trees. By the time she has collected a bundle load, it was 7 O' clock in the morning and then she started back (for her home). At that time the two accused Anil Singh and Ranjay Singh came there and asked her where she lived. She replied that she lived in (village) Basewa and proceeded with the bundle on her head. Anil Singh caught both her hands and knocked down the bundle. He then threw her down on the ground and both the accused gagged her by thrusting a piece of cloth in her mouth and the appellant kept her mouth closed by pressing his hand against it. Anil Singh caught both her hands and knocked down the bundle. He then threw her down on the ground and both the accused gagged her by thrusting a piece of cloth in her mouth and the appellant kept her mouth closed by pressing his hand against it. Thus rendering her de-fenceless first Anil Singh and after him the appellant Ranjay Singh committed rape on her. Before leaving her the accused held out the threat that she would be killed if she disclosed the incident to anyone. She then came back to her house crying and looked for her husband and her mother-in-law. They had gone out somewhere. When they came back she told them about the occurrence and then all of them came to the police station to give her statement. In the conclusion she reiterated that the two accused had committed rape on her. The F.I.R. was read over to her and finding it correctly recorded she put her thumb impression on it. Apart from the informant, two other witnesses also put their thumb-impressions on the F.I.R. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses but before proceeding to examine the depositions of individual witnesses it would be useful to take note of certain broad features of the case. 5. The informant and the other members of her family live in village Basewa and the appellant and the other accused belong to the neighbouring village Raundha. These two villages, alongwith several others, lie on the fringes of a jungle. From the evidence of the I.O. (PW 16: para 2) it would appear that the offence was committed at a spot called Khan Tanr Nakti. It is a completely isolated and desolate place. There are some small trees and the ground there is quite uneven. From the place of occurrence the informant's village is at a distance of one and a half kilometer towards north and the appellant's village Raundha towards south at a distance of about one kilometer; half a kilometer towards west from the place of occurrence is village Barari and one kilometer towards east is Imamganj Kothi road. At a distance of about one kilometer towards north east is the office of Imamganj Block. It would, thus, appear that there is no habitation within a radius of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. At a distance of about one kilometer towards north east is the office of Imamganj Block. It would, thus, appear that there is no habitation within a radius of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence seems to lie either in the jungle or at its edge (PW 13 : Para-7). The informant and her family are potters by caste and they make earthen-post and tiles for covering the thatched roof. There are 15-16 houses of potters in the village (PW 9 : Para 4). The victim appears to be a simple completely rustic, rural person. Perhaps she can only speak in the local dilect a would appear from the F.I.R. which is mostly written in the words of the informant (her deposition in court appears to have been take down by the Court in his own more refined Hindi). The financial position of the victim and her family and the other caste members living in the village can be easily appreciated from the fact that for domestic fuel for cooking food etc. their only source is cattle dung and dry sticks and pieces of wood gathered from village fields and the jungle area. On the other hand the appellant owns a large area of land and extensive cultivation in the victim's village. His lands bear a large number of palash trees on which lac is produced (PW 9: Para 3). According to the suggestion given by the defence the other accused Anil Singh was also a truck operator (PW 6 : Para 4). There is, thus, a vast difference in the financial positions and the social status of the two sides. They are at the two ends of the social order in the deeply rural area of a backward State. It has also come in evidence of PW 9 (Para 4) that for making earthen pots/tiles they sometimes took earth from the appellant's land and in case they failed to find any cattle dung or day sticks or pluck the branches of palash trees of the appellant. That displeased the accused and he was angry towards them. 6. Having thus out-lined some of the broad features of the case we now proceed to scrutinise the prosecution evidence in further detail. As noted above, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. That displeased the accused and he was angry towards them. 6. Having thus out-lined some of the broad features of the case we now proceed to scrutinise the prosecution evidence in further detail. As noted above, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. PWs 2, 3 and 4 are the three lady doctors who comprised the medical board that examined the victim. The report of the medical board is on record as Ext. 1. The depositions of PWs 2 to 4 are more or less the same. They stated before the Court that they did not find any marks of violence on the body of the victim or any injury on her genitals or private parts. They further stated that no spermatozoa was seen in her vaginal swab and to the question of the crossexaminer they replied that the absence of any external or internal injury indicated that no force was used against her. 7. The medical evidence is of hardly any relevance in this case. According to the prosecution, the rape was committed early in the morning of 29.12.1994 and the victim was examined by the medical board at 11.45 AM on 31.12.1994 that is to say, after more than forty eight hours of the occurrence. The victim is a married person and sexual life is known to her. The medical report, therefore, naturally found an old tear of the hymen. Hence, the absence of any injury on her genitals can be hardly surprising. The gap of more than forty eight hours in the commission of rape and her examination would also explain the absence of any spermatozoa in the vaginal swab. Further, the absence of any external injury on the back portions of her body cannot also conclusively negate the commission of rape and I am, therefore, not inclined to put any value on the doctors' opinion. In fact, the undue certainty and firmness in the doctors' replies to the cross-examiner's question make their answers suspect in my eyes. 8. Coming now to the other prosecution witnesses, PW 15 is a formal witness who was examined to identify the handwriting of the Officer Incharge, Imamganj police station in order to prove the F.I.R. (Ext. 3). The remaining prosecution witnesses can be broadly divided into four groups PWs 18, 11 and 14 were tendered. 8. Coming now to the other prosecution witnesses, PW 15 is a formal witness who was examined to identify the handwriting of the Officer Incharge, Imamganj police station in order to prove the F.I.R. (Ext. 3). The remaining prosecution witnesses can be broadly divided into four groups PWs 18, 11 and 14 were tendered. Here it may be said that the court finds it unfortunate that Ina Devi (PW 14) too was tendered because she appears to be one of the important material witnesses. She ought not to have been tendered but should have been examined as a fully-fledged prosecution witness. 9. PWs 5 and 7 are the witnesses of the seizure list (Ext. 4) under which the victim's red coloured petti coat, bearing some stains, was seized by the police. PW 6 is the husband of the victim and PWs 10 and 12 are her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. They mainly deposed before the Court that on returning to the house the victim and her other associates told them that she was raped by the two accused, including the appellant. 10. The most important set of witnesses comprise the prosecutrix herself (PW 1), Arun Prajpat (PW 9), a cousin of her husband and Urmila Devi (PW 13), the wife of another cousin of her husband. From the evidences of Urmila Devi (PW 13) and the mother-in-law, the father-in-law and the husband of the victim and her two Gotanis (wives of the husband's brothers) Urmila Devi (PW 13) and Ina Devi (PW 14) and Arun Prajpat had gone out for collecting cattle dung and dry sticks. Thus, the other three, apart from the prosecutrix herself, were also witnesses to the actual occurrence to a certain extent. One of them, Arjun Prajpat saw the two accused going in the direction of the victim. Urmila Devi, before she got frightened and ran back, saw the scuffle taking place between the accused and the victim. Ina Devi similarly must have seen at least the initial part of the occurrence (PW 13) : Para 2) and it is, therefore, a pity that the' prosecution did not examine her fully but only tendered her. 11. After this long introduction I take up the witnesses one by one. The prosecutrix was examined as the first witness. Ina Devi similarly must have seen at least the initial part of the occurrence (PW 13) : Para 2) and it is, therefore, a pity that the' prosecution did not examine her fully but only tendered her. 11. After this long introduction I take up the witnesses one by one. The prosecutrix was examined as the first witness. In her examination-in-chief she fully supported her case and reiterated what she had said earlier in the F.I.R. She stated before the Court that about two years ago she had gone to the jungle for gathering pieces of woods. At Dak Than in the jungle the occurrence took place where she was making a bundle of the sticks/twings plucked by her. She had started for her home when the two accused Ranjay Singh (the appellant) and Anil Singh came there and asked what she was doing. She answered that she was gathering pieces of wood. At this point Anil Singh made an assault on her and threw her down on the ground. He committed rape on her. When she tried to cry out, Anil Singh gagged her with a piece of cloth. After he was through, the appellant committed rape on her. She then came to her house and looked for her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. She informed them about the occurrence. Then, all of them went to the police station and informed the Daroga about the ocourrence, After that the Daroga sent her to Imamganj where she was examined, medically. She identified the accused Anil Singh but on that day Ranjay was not present in Court and was being represented. The cross-examiner was, however, able to make her say all the wrong things in cross-examination. In reply to his questions she said that she had gone to the jungle when it was still dark, adding that it was difficult to identify any person in darkness. She further said that it was still dark when she returned to her house. In cross-examination she further said that it was not her job to arrange for the fire wood and on the day of the occurrence she had not gone out to bring any fire-wood. She further said that it was still dark when she returned to her house. In cross-examination she further said that it was not her job to arrange for the fire wood and on the day of the occurrence she had not gone out to bring any fire-wood. She further said that prior to the occurrence there was no acquaintanceship between her and the accused and she did not know their names (at that time); that she came to know their names and identify them two-three years after the occurrence. She also stated that at the police station what was written by Daroga Jee was not read over to her and she did not know what Daroga Jee had written; that she put her thumb-impression on the paper on being asked by her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She added that the paper on which she had put her thumb-impression had already been written upon. 12. Arjun Prajpat (PW 9) stated that the occurrence took place about two years seven 'months ago. On that day he had gone across the Tand for gathering cattle dung. There he saw Anil Singh and the appellant Ranjay Singh going towards wet. He then came back to his house and later heard the hulla that Anil Singh and Ranjay Singh had raped Indu Devi. 13. Urmila Devi (PW 13) is more specific. She stated that on the day of occurrence she alongwith Ina Devi (PW 14), Arjun Prajpat (PW 9) and the victim Indu Devi (PW 1) had gone out for collecting cattle dung near the Nakti Pul (culvert) Anil Singh and the appellant Ranjay Singh came and started to assault Indu Devi. The occurrence was witnessed by herself, Ina Devi and Arjun Prajpat. She herself was at a distance of about ten bamboos from that place. Seeing the assault they got terrified and came back to their house. On returning to the house they were discussing the matter when Indu Devi came back crying and told them that Anil Singh and the appellant Ranjay Singh had committed rape on her. PW 13 appears to be the most consistent of all the prosecution witnesses. In her cross-examination she said that as they were unable to find any cattle dung in the village fields, they had gone over to Dak Than Nakti Pul that lies in the jungle area where there were a lot of Palash trees. 14. PW 13 appears to be the most consistent of all the prosecution witnesses. In her cross-examination she said that as they were unable to find any cattle dung in the village fields, they had gone over to Dak Than Nakti Pul that lies in the jungle area where there were a lot of Palash trees. 14. The other set of witnesses comprise the victim's husband (PW 6) and her father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e. PWs 10 and 12 respectively. Each of them said that he/she came to learn from the victim and from Urmila Devi and Arjun Prajpat that the accused Anil Singh and the appellant Ranjay Singh had committed rape on Indu Devi. PW 6 stated that he came to learn that his wife was raped by accused Anil Singh and the appellant Ranjay Singh from his wife Indu Devi, Ina Devi (PW 14), Urmila Devi (PW 13) and Arjun Prajpat (PW 9). The father-in-law (PW 10) similarly stated that he came to learn that his daughter-in-law was raped by the two accused from Urmila Devi (PW 13), Ina Devi PW 14) and her daughter-in-law Indu Devi, the victim (PW 1) herself. The mother-in-law (PW 12) similarly stated that her daughter-in-law on coming back to the house was crying and she told her that she was raped by Anil Singh and Ranjay Singh. Urmila Devi (PW 13), Ina Devi (PW 14) and Arjun Prajpat (PW 9) also told her about the occurrence. In her cross-examination she stated that though the occurrence was witnessed by Ina Devi, Urmila Devi and Arjun Prajpat, they hid themselves out of fright and returned to the house much later (PW 12 : Para 7). The three witnesses of the second set thus provide ample corroboration to the witnesses of the first set. 15. Mrs. Sheema Ali Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant tried to take full advantage of the medical evidence, certain statements made by the victim herself in her cross-examination and the statements of some of the other prosecution witnesses. She submitted that the medical evidence completely demolished the prosecution case and showed that there was no forcible rape and even if there was any inter-course that was consensual as would appear from the absence of any external or internal injury to the alleged victim. She submitted that the medical evidence completely demolished the prosecution case and showed that there was no forcible rape and even if there was any inter-course that was consensual as would appear from the absence of any external or internal injury to the alleged victim. She referred to the evidence of the I.O. and submitted that the place of occurrence was full of small trees and the ground there was very rough and uneven and in those conditions it would not be possible to commit rape without causing some external injuries on the person of the victim. I am unable to accept the submission. Mere absence of scratches or other external injuries on the person of the victim can never be taken as conclusive to hold that rape was not committed and the other negative findings in the medical evidence are fully explained earlier in this judgment. I am, therefore, unhesitatingly of the view that the medical evidence is of no use in this case and it certainly does not provide any help to the appellant. 16. Coming now to the other prosecution witnesses, Mrs. Khan fully exploited practically every statement of the prosecutrix in her cross-examination as proof of her client's innocence. She submitted that there were numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of witnesses both internally and viza-viz each other that made the prosecution case quite impossible to accept. She referred to the statement of the prosecutrix that the entire occurrence took place while it was still dark and that she did not know the culprits from before; that she came to identify them and learnt their names two-three years after the occurrence; that she put her thumb-impression on the paper written by the Daroga even without knowing its contents and simply on being told by her mother-in-law and her father-in-law. She referred to the evidences of the two seizure list witnesses PWs 5 and 7 and pointed out that both of them said that they had gone to the Police Station at 4 P.M. and the seizure list was prepared at 7 P.M. but the time stated in the seizure list itself was 2.30 PM. She referred to several other similar inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses and submitted that it was plainly a case of false implication. She referred to several other similar inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses and submitted that it was plainly a case of false implication. She also suggested the motive for which the members of the prosecution party would falsely implicate the appellant. She referred to the evidence of PW 6, the husband of the prosecutrix and pointed out that he and his family members worked for one Ramdeo Singh who was admittedly present at the P.S. at the time of the institution of the case. A suggestion was also made to the witnesses that Ramdeo Singh was the rival of the accused Anil Singh as a truck operator and it was at his instance that the false case was instituted against the accused. In that regard she further referred to the admitted position that the relationship between the two sides was estranged because the members of the prosecution party used to take away earth from his land and pluck branches from the Palash trees standing on his land. She submitted that for this reason the appellant might have abused them or shouted at them and in retaliation the false case was filed against him. She also referred to the statement of the victim's mother-in-law that while they were going to the Police Station, she saw the two accused sitting at their khalihan where the thrashing of paddy was being done by (their) labourers. Mrs. Khan submitted that it was a very unusual circumstance and it plainly showed the innocence bf the accused. 17. I am unable to accept the submission made by Mrs. Khan. There is' no denying the statements of witnesses, including the prosecutrix, referred to by her. But I would not lay undue emphasis on the so called inconsistencies and contradictions of individual witnesses and the apparent mis-statements by the prosecutrix in her cross-examination, I would rather see the whole picture in its totality giving due regard to the social realities of rural life. The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief was very clear about rape being committed on her. Her statement finds support by the evidence of Urmila Devi (PW 13) and to a certain extent by Arjun Prajpat (PW 9). The evidence of these three witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of the husband, the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief was very clear about rape being committed on her. Her statement finds support by the evidence of Urmila Devi (PW 13) and to a certain extent by Arjun Prajpat (PW 9). The evidence of these three witnesses is corroborated by the evidence of the husband, the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the prosecutrix. The over all picture that emerges is that the commission of rape initially left the informant and her companions with whom she had gone out for gathering cattle dung and dry pieces of wood shocked, stunned and over-award. After returning home the matter was reported to other family members and then by and by resentment and the feeling of out-rage grew and the victim mustered the courage to go to the Police Station in a large group for making the report. The fact that while the victim's family was going to the Police Station, the accused were seen sitting in their khalihan over-seeing the work of paddy thrashing only shows that from their point of view it was a very ordinary and casual incident. The inconsistencies and contradictions so heavily relied upon by Mrs. Khan are the result of the witnesses being very simple and rustic rural people not used to the ways of the Court. Further, the pathetic way in which the prosecutrix conducted herself in cross-examination is only illustrative of how a victim of rape can go to pieces when subjected to harsh and callous cross-examination in a strange place and under full public glare. 18. I repeat that on a careful appraisal of the materials on record, I am fully satisfied that the offence was committed by the appellant and the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond any reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold and find that the appellant's conviction under section 376 of the Penal Code was arrived at quite reasonably and properly and it does not warrant any interference in appeal. 19. This brings us to the question of sentence. The trial court has given to the appellant the maximum punishment permissible by the law. Rape is undoubtedly a revolting offence and it shows the depravity of the offender. But all cases of rape cannot be put at par since the cases would naturally vary in degree of brutality or perversity. 19. This brings us to the question of sentence. The trial court has given to the appellant the maximum punishment permissible by the law. Rape is undoubtedly a revolting offence and it shows the depravity of the offender. But all cases of rape cannot be put at par since the cases would naturally vary in degree of brutality or perversity. For example rape of a minor or small child may present features of savage brutality or the rape of someone taking advantage of his special relationship with the victim, such as, a teacher or an elderly friend of the family or even an elder of the family, such as, the father-in-law would show uncommon perversity. It is for that reason that the law gives the latitude and provides for a graded punishment for the offence of rape. The punishment ranges from imprisonment for the minimum statutory period of seven years and goes upto a life term. In this case we fail to find any feature of extra-ordinary brutality or perversity that would justify the imposition of the maximum punishment to the appellant. Presumably, the appellant by his action in absconding in course of the trial had greatly annoyed and angered the Court and that might have unconsciously weighed with the Court in imposing the maximum punishment. As noted above we do not find it a case for imposition of the maximum punishment. At the same time there is no special reason for not giving the minimum statutory punishment prescribed by the law. 20. I accordingly feel that the end of justice will be fully satisfied by modifying the appellant's punishment to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs.10,000/-. On realisation of the fine the entire amount would go to the victim. On default in payment of fine the appellant must suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 21. In the result, this appeal is dismissed subject to the modification in the sentence as above.