JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 8-4-2003 passed by the Special (Sessions) Judge, Narsinghpur in Special Case No. 134/92 whereby the appellant has been convicted under sections 376 and 450 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month each. The sentences of imprisonment are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the victim was married with Punnu. Her husband went to Jabalpur to his sister. She was alone at her house. On 29-6-1992 after taking meals she was sleeping along with her son and daughter on the ground of courtyard of her house. The light of courtyard was on. At about 1:00 a.m. appellant came there, she awakened. The appellant took out the knife and stated her not to cry, therefore, she remained silent on account of fear. The appellant put off the light of courtyard. He came to her, started lifting her petticoat and dhoti. She tried to resist and cried but he pressed her mouth and put the knife on her breast and asked her to lie silently. He lifted her petticoat and dhoti and penetrated his male organ in her private part. She was resisting. The appellant also pressed her breast. After committing the intercourse he threatened not to disclose the incident to anybody else otherwise he will kill her, therefore, she did not tell the incident to anybody in the night and she was waiting for returning of her husband from Jabalpur but he did not return. Then she told the incident to Govind, Raju and also to the wife of Hakam Gwal, then she reached on police station Themi along with Govind and Raju and lodge the report on 29-6-1992 at 12:30 p.m. The Crime No. 113/92 under section 448, 376, 506-B of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(xi) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against the appellant. After obtaining the consent of victim and permission of S.D.M. to get her medically examined, she was referred to Government Hospital, Narsinghpur for medical examination where she was examined by Dr. Neena Dubey at 7:00 p.m. She did not opine regarding commission of rape with prosecutrix. She prepared the slides of vaginal smears and also took the petticoat from her. After obtaining the consent of victim and permission of S.D.M. to get her medically examined, she was referred to Government Hospital, Narsinghpur for medical examination where she was examined by Dr. Neena Dubey at 7:00 p.m. She did not opine regarding commission of rape with prosecutrix. She prepared the slides of vaginal smears and also took the petticoat from her. The sealed packet of slides and petticoat were handed over to the police constable who brought the victim for medical examination. These articles were seized vide seizure memo. The spot map was prepared. The statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the J.M.F.C. Court Narsinghpur wherein the appellant was shown to be absconding. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. Later on the appellant surrendered before J.M.F.C. Court on 8-10-1992. 3. The appellant was charged under section 3(1)(xi) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sections 450 and 376 of Indian Penal Code alleging that on 29-6-1992 at 1:00 a.m. at village Mekh in the jurisdiction of police station Themi the appellant not being a member of S.C. or S.T. and the victim being the member of S.C. assaulted or used force against her with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. It was also alleged that he committed house trespass by entering into her house, used as a human dwelling in order to commission of rape which is punishable with imprisonment for life and thereby committed rape on her. 4. The appellant abjured the guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated. 5. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and the appellant only one witness. 6. On conclusion of trial, the Special Judge after hearing the arguments of both the parties delivered the judgment on 8-4-1993 whereby the appellant was acquitted from the charge of section 3(1)(xi) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 but convicted under sections 450 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment one month R.I. in each of the section. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence this appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. 100/- in default of payment one month R.I. in each of the section. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence this appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. We have heard Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sudesh Verma, learned G.A. for the respondent-State. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is the contradiction in the evidence of prosecutrix on the material particulars. Her conduct is unnatural because the prosecutrix saw the appellant coming to courtyard and did not get up at all. Likewise when the appellant went away she did not raise any alarm and went for sleeping. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix is the young, healthy, aged 22 years and it was impossible to single individual to commit rape on her. No any injury either on the internal or external part was found by the doctor who conducted her medical examination. There is no any evidence to support the version of the prosecutrix. The only other witness is Guppal @ Govinda (PW-2) but his version is full of contradictions. Moreover, he is the related witness to the victim. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix is involved with Santosh and he has prompted the prosecutrix to make false complaint against the appellant. The defence version ought to have been accepted from the evidence available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. The trial Court has committed illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences under sections 450 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 10. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Verma, learned G.A. appearing for the respondent-State supported the judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt hence trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for those offences, therefore, it does not call for any interference in this appeal. 11. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections 450 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. 12. P.W.-1 is prosecutrix/victim. 11. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under sections 450 and 376 of Indian Penal Code. 12. P.W.-1 is prosecutrix/victim. She has deposed that she was sleeping in courtyard. The appellant opened Fatakia (door). She asked him as to why he has come so late in the night in her house. The appellant said to him not to make cry otherwise he will kill her. The appellant put off the light, pressed her mouth and breast and put the knife, lifted her petticoat, inserted his male organ into her private part and committed sexual intercourse. She could not cry due to fear. The appellant also threatened that if she disclose the incident to anybody then he will kill her and her children then the accused ran away from her house. She has clearly stated that the appellant has committed sexual intercourse without her consent. 13. She has further deposed that F.I.R. was lodged and her petticoat was also seized. 14. This witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination on behalf of the appellant. The efforts are made to bring the contradictions and omission in her statement from the police report Ex.P/1 and her police statement Ex.D/1. But the contradictions are not so material as to go to the root of the case. However, she has explained that the accused was having knife, he threatened not to make cry, she did not ran away because her two small children were sleeping there and she was apprehending that the appellant may kill them. She was frightened on account of threatening given by appellant, therefore, did not disclose the incident at night. She was alone, her husband was out, two small children were with her, therefore, she did not go to lodge the report at night. But in the morning she told about the incident to Govind, Raju, Mangal and Summa and proceeded at 7-8 a.m. to lodge the report to police station Themi along with Govind and Raju. 15. On perusal of the entire statement of this witness, it is manifestly clear that the appellant entered in her house by night and committed sexual intercourse without her consent. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination to discredit this witness. 16. 15. On perusal of the entire statement of this witness, it is manifestly clear that the appellant entered in her house by night and committed sexual intercourse without her consent. Nothing is elicited in the cross examination to discredit this witness. 16. Guppal @ Govind (PW-2) has deposed that prosecutrix told to him and Raju that the appellant has committed sexual intercourse with her. 17. This witness is also subjected to cross-examination and the efforts are made to bring the contradiction from her police repot Ex.P-3. The contradiction is about the place as to where she told about the incident. This is not a material contradiction to discredit his statement. 18. P. N. Tiwari (PW-3) has prepared the spot map Ex.P/4 and has recorded the statement of the witnesses during the course of investigation. 19. Gajraj Singh (PW-5) recorded the police report Ex.P/1 lodged by Anita Bai on 29-6-1992 at 12:30 p.m. After obtaining her consent got her medically examined. Dr. Neena Dubey (PW-4) conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix on 29-6-1992 at 7:00 p.m. She has not found any external or internal injuries on her person and was not of definite opinion regarding the commission of rape on the prosecutrix. However, she prepared two slides of the vaginal smears and also took the petticoat from prosecutrix and these were sealed and handed over to constable. 20. The prosecution by this evidence tried to establish that the appellant committed house trespass by night in the house of victim and committed rape on her. 21. The appellant has examined Tejbal Singh (DW-1) who has stated that the prosecutrix is not of good moral character and is having illicit relations with Santosh but he has never witnessed such incident. 22. By this evidence the appellant tried to show that the prosecutrix is not of good moral character and he has implicated at the instance of Santosh but it is nowhere stated by the appellant that how Santosh was having enmity with the appellant so as to prompt him falsely implicate in the case by prosecutrix. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix and is not corroborated by an independent evidence, therefore, her evidence should not be relied upon. 24. As stated earlier, the contradictions are not on the material point and do not go to the root of the case. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of prosecutrix and is not corroborated by an independent evidence, therefore, her evidence should not be relied upon. 24. As stated earlier, the contradictions are not on the material point and do not go to the root of the case. 25. It is settled principle of law that victim of rape is not an accomplice. Dinesh vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) SCC 771 and conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Parvat vs. State of Rajasthan 13 SCC 398, State of H. P. vs. Asharam (2005) SCC 766 and Vishnu vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 270. 26. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Surjan and others vs. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 476 wherein it is held that solitary testimony is relied only when it inspires confidence. He has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Sudhansu Sekkar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, AIR 2003 SC 2136 wherein it is held that solitary testimony of prosecutrix can form basis for conviction provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance. 27. It can very well be said that if the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence then the conviction may be based on her testimony alone. 28. So far as the present case is concerned, the evidence of the prosecutrix is natural, probable, reliable and hence inspires confidence. Therefore, the trial Court has not committed illegality in relying her statement. Her evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of Guppal @ Govind (PW-2). 29. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no medical corroboration. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Chandrayya Hanumanthappa Mallapanavar and others, 2003 Cri.L.J. 258. 30. No doubt Dr. Neena Dubey has not found any internal or external injury on the person of the prosecutrix but the circumstances in which the appellant committed rape at the stake of knife, she was not in a position to make the effective resistance and, therefore, in such situation, there was no any possibility to sustain any injury. 31. 30. No doubt Dr. Neena Dubey has not found any internal or external injury on the person of the prosecutrix but the circumstances in which the appellant committed rape at the stake of knife, she was not in a position to make the effective resistance and, therefore, in such situation, there was no any possibility to sustain any injury. 31. In the case of Santosh Kumar (2006) 10 SCC 595 it is held that mere fact that no injuries were found on the private part cannot be ground to hold that no rape was committed upon her or that the entire prosecution story is false - prosecutrix was a married grown up lady in absence of injuries on her private parts was not of much significance. 32. In the present case, also the prosecutrix is a married lady aged about 20 years, the mother of two children hence in the circumstances in which the appellant committed rape on her, there was no possibility to sustain any injury and if the injuries are not found on the person of prosecutrix, it cannot be inferred that the prosecution story is false or no rape was committed on her. 33. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a single person could not have committed rape on prosecutrix a grown up lady. The learned counsel has placed the reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Pratap Misra and others vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 1307 but the case is distinguishable on the facts of this case. The rape has been done at the stake of knife under threatening and in the atmosphere of fear, she was apprehending that appellant may kill her or her children. Therefore, no effective resistance could have been made. 34. The prosecutrix has specifically stated in her evidence that sexual intercourse was done without her consent. This statement of the prosecutrix is reliable because if she might have consented then there was no any occasion to disclose the incident to various persons in the very morning and to lodge the report promptly. 35. The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated due to the fact that the prosecutrix is having the illicit relationship with Santosh but as held earlier the appellant has not stated as to why Santosh was inimical to him. 35. The defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated due to the fact that the prosecutrix is having the illicit relationship with Santosh but as held earlier the appellant has not stated as to why Santosh was inimical to him. He has not established as to why he has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix. 36. The trial Court has considered every aspect in his judgment and rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved charge of offence under sections 450 and 376 Indian Penal Code. There is no any infirmity or illegality in arriving at such conclusion hence such finding is confirmed. 37. The sentence awarded is quite proportionate to offence hence confirmed. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 38. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He be directed to surrender before C.J.M., Narsinghpur on 18-6-2007 to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 39. The order regarding payment of compensation to the prosecutrix and that of disposal of criminal properties passed by the trial Court are hereby affirmed.