JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal by an accused who was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. The appellant hereinafter shall be referred to as accused. 2. The facts giving rise to this prosecution are as under Prosecutrix, aged 18 years, is resident of village Dahegaon Dhawade in Amravati district. She was taking education in Ashok Mahavidyalaya at Chandur (Rly.). She was, therefore, residing with her maternal aunt at Chandur (Rly). Since college was closed for Diwali vacation, she had come to her native place Dahegaon. On 19-11-2005 she had gone as usual to the field for plucking cotton. She returned home in the evening at about 6 p.m. Thereafter, she went with a tin of water for easing herself by the side of a Nallah. When she went there, the accused came there, caught hold of her, pressed her mouth tightly and lifted. He took her in the Nallah and had sexual intercourse with her against her consent. He gave her threat that if she raised an alarm, she will be done to death. Even, after the sexual intercourse, the accused gave her threat that if she discloses the sexual intercourse to anyone, she would be killed. The complainant then rushed back to her house half naked and narrated the incident to her parents. With them, she went to the police station and lodged the report. She was examined by the Medical Officer. The police had seized her clothes and that of the accused. They had also seized the chappal and Tin lying on the spot. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, after the case was committed to him, framed the charge. Accused pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him accordingly. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that this appeal has been preferred. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The prosecution has examined five witnesses in this case. They include, PW-l the prosecutrix, PW-2 Janabai - the mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3 - Vasant, S.D.P.O., PW4 - Priti, the Medical Officer and PW-5 Madhukar Patil, Dy.S.P., who carried out the investigation. 6. 5. The prosecution has examined five witnesses in this case. They include, PW-l the prosecutrix, PW-2 Janabai - the mother of the prosecutrix, PW-3 - Vasant, S.D.P.O., PW4 - Priti, the Medical Officer and PW-5 Madhukar Patil, Dy.S.P., who carried out the investigation. 6. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age. It is deposed by PW -1 that on the date of the incident she had gone to the field of one Babanrao for plucking cotton and she came back home in the evening around 6 p.m. She has further stated that she went to the place where the women of village generally go for easing. She states that accused came there, caught her, shut her mouth and took her to the Nallah. She also states that accused removed her clothes forcibly and had sexual intercourse with her. Further she goes on to depose that the accused gave her a threat to kill if she raised an alarm. Further she states that after some time, the accused again committed sexual intercourse with her. The accused thereafter went to bring these clothes which were lying nearby and at that time she ran away home half naked. She states that she had wrapped her dupatta around her waist and she narrated the incident to her mother. 7. It was contended on behalf of the accused that the prosecutrix admits that prior to the incident, three persons were passing by the road and therefore she was standing. It was contended that if those persons were passing by the road, the prosecutrix could have very well raised an alarm and invited attention of those people. The argument has no force, because at that time the accused had not caught hold of her and therefore there was no question of her raising an alarm. Further it was contended that the prosecutrix states that the accused had sexual intercourse with her, twice and this fact goes to show that she was a consenting party. Such an inference cannot be drawn. Firstly, there is a presumption that when the prosecutrix says that she had not consented, the court should presume that there was no consent. It may be mentioned that she has stated that the accused had given threat to kill her. Such an inference cannot be drawn. Firstly, there is a presumption that when the prosecutrix says that she had not consented, the court should presume that there was no consent. It may be mentioned that she has stated that the accused had given threat to kill her. If a threat was given to her that she would be killed, it was quite possible that she kept quiet at such a lonely place. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecutrix had run away wrapping a dupatta around her waist p and this shows that she immediately escaped II from the clutches of the accused when she got an opportunity. He submitted that had she been a consenting party, she would not have run home t' half naked. I find much substance in the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. No woman or girl would run home half naked unless she was scared. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest that she was a consenting party nor there is anything to suggest that the accused is falsely implicated. 9. PW-2 lanabai Khadse - mother of prosecutrix - has stated that the prosecutrix came home running and weeping and told that she was raped. She has also stated that prosecutrix was not wearing paijama when she came home. This statement of Janabai corroborates the version of PW -1 and shows her conduct of instantly narrating the incident to her mother. 10. PW-4 Dr. Priti has stated that she had examined prosecutrix and on examination she found that one finger was easily passing through vagina but with pain. She also found abrasions 5 to 6 in numbers on right gluteal region. She further states that on vaginal examination she found blood stains all over her private part and there was injury with bluish scar on right labia minora. She also found clot of blood. She opines that the injury on the private part of prosecutrix could be caused by forcible intercourse. She also states that prosecutrix was not habituated to sexual intercourse and on clinical examination she opines that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The Medical Certificate is at Exh.32. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Certificate goes to show that the doctor was unable to give opinion with regard to sexual intercourse. She also states that prosecutrix was not habituated to sexual intercourse and on clinical examination she opines that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The Medical Certificate is at Exh.32. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the Certificate goes to show that the doctor was unable to give opinion with regard to sexual intercourse. Priti (PW-4), however, states in cross-examination that she gave such an opinion at that time because she did not notice semen. Her oral evidence, in fact, is a substantive evidence and the oral evidence clearly goes to establish that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. 11. The spot panchanama (Exh.8) is admitted by accused. It shows that the slipper, the water tin and the clothes of the prosecutrix were found on the spot. This fact also corroborates her version that she ran away from the spot leaving these things on the spot. This again goes to show that she could not be a consenting party. Had she been, she would have brought all these things with her and would not have left clothes, Tin etc. on the spot. The evidence overwhelmingly, therefore, goes to show that the accused is guilty of having committed a rape on prosecutrix. I therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.