ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) RADHA (not the real name) was practically deserted by her parents. Her father was working at Nicobar. Her mother was mentally ill and staying separately. She was staying with her maternal uncle. While she was 18 years old on February 10, 1996 she along with K. Punieswari (11 years old at that point of time) went to the Nallah to take her bath. She was forcefully taken away by putting cloth on her mouth by Vimalanathan. Vimalanathan took her to the nearby jungle and committed rape on her. K. Punieswari was taken aback. Out of fear she tried to locate Radha, she climbed on a cut tree when she saw that Radha lied on the ground and vimalanathan was found on her body in naked condition. After some time radha came out from the jungle and reported the incident to k. Punieswar. They took their bath and then went to their residence. Initially she did not report the incident to her uncle or aunt in the fear that she might be driven out from the house. However, on query made by her aunt she narrated the incident who in turn reported it to her husband and ultimately the F.. R. wad lodged with the Police Station after about four days of the incident. Police arrested Vimalanathan. Both of them were sent for medical examination. Vimalanathan pleaded not guilty. In defence he pleaded that on that date he was busy cleaning temple since morning. He was falsely implicated in the case as he asked the maternal uncle of Radha to transfer some land in favour of Rajaram on account of marriage with his sister. He also pleaded that there had been illicit relationship between the wife of paria Swamy, P. W. 7 and the father of Vimalanathan. It was his case that there had been love affair between him and Radha and K. Punieswari maintained liaison at the relevant time between themselves. ( 2 ) ALTOGETHER 12 witnesses were examined including Radha, K. Punieswari, her maternal uncle, aunt, the doctor who examined them, the village people and the police officials. The police seized the Lehenga of radha which she was wearing on the relevant date as well as the shirt, lungi and handkerchief belonging to Vimalanathan. ( 2 ) ALTOGETHER 12 witnesses were examined including Radha, K. Punieswari, her maternal uncle, aunt, the doctor who examined them, the village people and the police officials. The police seized the Lehenga of radha which she was wearing on the relevant date as well as the shirt, lungi and handkerchief belonging to Vimalanathan. The forensic report after examination of the exhibits so seized by the police as well as the medical examination report given by the concerned doctor were also tendered in evidence. Upon perusal of the evidence so adduced on behalf of the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge held Vimalanathan guilty of the offence and imposed punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 8 years coupled with a fine of Rs 2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. Vimalanathan is in custody and we are told that he has already undergone 2 years of imprisonment. ( 3 ) APPEARING for the appellant Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Counsel contended before us as follows:- (i) The statement of K. Punieswari given to the police immediately after the alleged occurrence under Section 164 of the cr. P. C. did not tally with her evidence adduced during the trial. (ii) There had been discrepancies with regard to the distance so narrated by the witnesses being Radha and K. Punieswar. (iii) Had there been any forcible activity committed by the appellant natural reaction of the victim would have been to rush to her residence whereas the evidence would show that Radha after the alleged rape being committed took her bathbefore she left for her residence. She also did not report it to her maternal uncle or aunt unless and until she was asked by her aunt. (iv) There were discrepancies in evidence regarding the colour of the handkerchief and the dress at the time of identification. (v) Medical report would show that there was no mark of physical intercourse which was the primary requisite to convict the accused under Section 376. P. C. ( 4 ) POINTING out those discrepancies in the evidence Mrs. Nag contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge as against the appellant and as such he deserved an order of acquittal. As and by way of alternative submission Mrs. P. C. ( 4 ) POINTING out those discrepancies in the evidence Mrs. Nag contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge as against the appellant and as such he deserved an order of acquittal. As and by way of alternative submission Mrs. Nag also contended that in case this Court holds that the appellant was rightly convicted as the charges brought against him stood proved considering the evidence so discussed above and the discrepancies pointed out by her, this Court should reduce the quantum of sentence after taking into consideration that the appellant already suffered 2 years imprisonment by this time. ( 5 ) OPPOSING the appeal Mr. Mandal appearing for the prosecution contended as follows:- (i) The evidence so laid before the learned Sessions Judge was sufficient enough to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. (ii) The facts and circumstances of the case as came out in evidence did not deserve any modulation of the punishment by way of reduction or otherwise. ( 6 ) IN support of his contention Mr. Mandal cited the following decisions:- (1) 2003 (8) Supreme Court Cases 590: Tulasidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa; (2) 2004 Criminal Law Journal. . . (Jharkhand High Court) : mangra Indwar v. State of Bihar; (3) All India Reporter 2004 SC 4404: State of Himachal pradesh v. Shreekant Shekhari; (4) 1996 (2) Supreme Court Cases 384: State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and Ors. ; (5)2004 Criminal Law Journal 738 (Madras High Court): vellingiri v. State; (6) 2004 (7) Supreme Court Cases 775: Sri Narayan Saha and anr. v. State of Tripura; (7) 2006 (3) Supreme Court Cases 771: Dinesh v. State of rajasthan. ( 7 ) OFFENCE of rape punishable under Section 376. P. C. is a crime having a special feature. In Criminal Jurisprudence the degree of proof is much more strict than that of any other proceeding and the prosecution is having an onerous burden of proof to the effect that the evidence should draw only logical conclusion that it is the accused and nobody else who committed the crime. Such degree of proof is however relaxed in a case under Section 376. The legislature brought a change in the Evidence Law. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 had undergone a change by incorporation of Section 114a which was inserted by the Act of 1983. Such degree of proof is however relaxed in a case under Section 376. The legislature brought a change in the Evidence Law. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 had undergone a change by incorporation of Section 114a which was inserted by the Act of 1983. The said section being relevant herein is quoted below:- "114a. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape.- in a prosecution for rape under Clause (a) or Clause (b) or clause (c) or Clause (d) or Clause (e) or Clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent. " ( 8 ) NOW the evidence of the victim is only relevant to convict the accused. This amendment has a social backdrop. In our society when a girl is raped she is not looked at by the common people in the way it ought to have been. Hence the victims seldom report such crime to the police authorities in the fear of being discarded by the society. Moreover, the stringency in the matter of proof of the crime might embarrass the victim meaning thereby she is raped twice, once at the time of commission of the crime and secondly at the time of trial. To obviate such misery and to bring to book such criminals more easily the legislators thought it fit to amend the evidence law. ( 9 ) RELYING on the said amended provision the Apex Court in the cases cited by the prosecution referred to above time and again observed that the statement of the victim is sufficient enough for conviction of the accused meaning thereby once the victim comes to the witness box and makes a statement that she was raped by the accused the onus is on the accused to prove that such statement by no stretch of imagination could be believed by the Court and the materials-on-record could lead to only one conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated in the Case out of malice or for extraneous consideration. Such is not the case here. ( 10 ) MRS. Such is not the case here. ( 10 ) MRS. Nag tried to contend that there had been contradictory evidence with regard to the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of Radha. In our view, same has no relevance at all considering the evidence adduced by Radha and corroborated by K. Punieswar. The appellant miserably failed to rebut the statement of Radha made before the police as well as at the trial. Assuming they were known to each other that would not give any licence to the appellant to commit rape on her. The Sessions trial was had after about eight years from the date of occurrence. There might have been mistakes committed by the witnesses with regard to description of the wearing apparel. That would also not change the scenario so long a clear statement was made by radha consistently before the police as well as at the trial and corroborated by K. Punieswar. ( 11 ) THE Apex Court in the case of State of M. P. v. Jaleel Khan, reported in 2006 (6) Supreme Court Cases 18 observed that to reduce the punishment the Court has to consider the special circumstance. In the instant case, we do not find any such special circumstances which we can record before considering the prayer for reduction of the punishment. Hence, prayer of Mrs. Nag on that score also cannot be acceded to. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.