Judgment ( 1. ) 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 15. 07. 1994 passed by II Additional sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 30/91, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 342 and 392 of i. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for 4 years with fine of Rs. 500/-in default s. I. for 2 months, fine of Rs. 300/-in default S. I. for 1 month and R. I. for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/-in default S. I. for 2 months respectively. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION case in short is that PW-3 is victim resident of village dani Tola who has lodged the report on 27. 09. 1990 at P. S. Ghughri, district Mandla to the effect that on 25. 09. 1990 at about 2:00 p. m. she has gone to collect the fire woods in the Jamunahi forest. Appellant came from behind, caught hold of her, tied her with a tree by the rope, caused her marpeet, threatened her and in the midnight he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next day at about 8:00 p. m. when the father of the appellant came there to rescue her, appellant also tried to assault him. He snatched her nose ring and ran away towards Bichhiya. She returned to the house and narrated the story to her father, Sarpanch, Kotwar and other persons of the village. On the basis of this report Crime No. 50/90 under sections 342, 376, and 392 was registered. She was sent for medical examination. Dr. Sunita Poddar, WAS, District Mandla medically examined her on 28. 09. 1990. Petticoat of victim, nylon rope, bangles etc were seized. Map was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Appellant was arrested. He was also sent for medical examination. His medical examination was done by Dr. Akhilesh narayan Singh who found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. Nose ring was seized from appellant but victim did not identify it. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed n the Court of J. M. F. C. , Mandla who committed the case to the sessions Court fro trial. ( 3. His medical examination was done by Dr. Akhilesh narayan Singh who found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. Nose ring was seized from appellant but victim did not identify it. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed n the Court of J. M. F. C. , Mandla who committed the case to the sessions Court fro trial. ( 3. ) APPELLANT stood charged under Sections 376, 342 and 392 of I. P. C. He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses whereas the accused did not examine any witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty and sentenced as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 4. ) SHRI Surendra Singh was engaged by the appellant as his counsel but she did not appear to argue the case on the date of hearing on 17. 07. 2008 and 06. 08. 2008. The appeal is pending since 1994. Therefore, Shri R. K. Asati, Advocate has been appointed from the panel of the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee to argue the case on behalf of appellant so that the appeal may be disposed of expeditiously. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. The evidence of prosecutrix is not supported by medical evidence. She was the consenting party, therefore, the trial Court has erred in holding the appellant guilty under Section 376 of I. P. C. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. ( 6. ) ON the contrary, Shri Pankaj Dixit, learned P. L. appearing on behalf of the respondent/state supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant hence it does not call for any interference. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether trial court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376, 342 and 392 of I. P. C. ? ( 8. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether trial court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376, 342 and 392 of I. P. C. ? ( 8. ) PW-3 is a star witness to this case because it is alleged that appellant has committed rape with her. This witness has deposed that she had gone to forest to fetch the firewood. The appellant came from her behind, gagged her mouth with cloth, tied her hands and legs by rope, which she also carried to bring the firewood. He threatened her and also caused her marpeet. He tied her with a tree, kept her tied throughout the night and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse with her 2-3 times. He has also snatched her nose ring. On the next day appellant?s father came there and released her. Thereafter she lodged the report Ex. P/2. She was medically examined. Her petticoat was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/3. The rope by which she was tied has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/5. The bangles were also seized vide Ex. P/4. The nose ring was put to identification but she did not identify because it was not her nose ring. ( 9. ) THIS witness has been subjected to a lengthy and piercing cross examination and tried to bring the fact that whether she was a consenting party but she has denied all such suggestive questions put to her. Moreover, she has stated that she tried her level best to resist but she could not as her hands were kept tied. She tried to save herself by legs but could not. She has deposed in great detail as to how the forcible sexual intercourse was done by the appellant in that forest. Her testimony has not been rebutted in cross examination, therefore, her evidence is intact on the point of committing forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant with her and also snatched nose ring. On critical appraisal of her evidence it does not prima facie appear that she was a consenting party because if it was so then there was no need to go in the forest and then to threat and beat her and then to tie her by a rope with a tree then commit sexual intercourse. On critical appraisal of her evidence it does not prima facie appear that she was a consenting party because if it was so then there was no need to go in the forest and then to threat and beat her and then to tie her by a rope with a tree then commit sexual intercourse. If she was consenting party then appellant was not required to take all such steps. These acts go to reflect that she was not a consenting party. Her evidence is totally against the appellant, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable that prosecutrix was a consenting party. ( 10. ) SURESH Kumar Soni (PW-1), Surat Prasad (PW-2) and Jageshwar prasad Soni (PW-4) all have deposed that PW-3 prosecutrix told her about the incident. They have clearly stated that prosecutrix told them that appellant kept her tied with a tree by rope and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and carried away her nose ring. In spite of lengthy and piercing cross examination their testimony has not been shattered on the material point. Thus they have corroborated the fact that immediately after the incident prosecutrix narrated the incident to them. ( 11. ) PROSECUTRIX lodged the report Ex. P/2 which was written by ramprasad (PW-16 ). She was sent for medical examination. Her medical examination was done by Dr. Sunita Poddar. Her medical report is proved by Dr. S. K. Nigam (PW-17) because Dr. Sunita Poddar has left India and has gone to Dubai. According to this report no definite opinion can be given about recent sexual intercourse. Final opinion can be given only after chemical examination report received of vaginal slides. Two vaginal slides were prepared and her petticoat was also obtained. These articles were handed over to the constable who has carried prosecutrix for medical examination. Petticoat has been seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/3 and the slides were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/11. The appellant was also sent for medical examination. His medical examination was done by Dr. Akhilesh narayan Singh (PW-13) who found him capable to perform sexual intercourse and submitted the report Ex. P/13. Chaddi of the appellant was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/10. ( 12. ) RAMPRASAD (PW-16) has deposed that nose ring was seized from appellant vide seizure memo Ex. His medical examination was done by Dr. Akhilesh narayan Singh (PW-13) who found him capable to perform sexual intercourse and submitted the report Ex. P/13. Chaddi of the appellant was also seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/10. ( 12. ) RAMPRASAD (PW-16) has deposed that nose ring was seized from appellant vide seizure memo Ex. P/5 and Ramratan Maravi (PW14), tahsildar put this nose ring for identification but the same could not be identified by the prosecutrix. As stated hereinabove that the prosecutrix has deposed that it was not her nose ring, therefore, could not be identified but she has clearly given the evidence that the nose ring was snatched. ( 13. ) IT is evident from the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-3) that the appellant tied her by a rope with a tree, kept in forest throughout the night in such condition, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and also snatched her nose ring. She could only be released only after the intervention of appellant?s father. The evidence of prosecutrix is quite natural, probable and convincing. She is a reliable witness. There is nothing to falsely implicate the appellant. Her evidence alone is sufficient to convict the appellant. ( 14. ) TRIAL Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has rightly came to the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant. I find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in such finding, therefore, the finding of guilt is hereby affirmed. ( 15. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has suffered jail sentence of near about 1 month and 20 days, therefore, he be released on the period already undergone. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, no reduction in sentence is called for, therefore, the sentence passed by trial Court is also hereby maintained. The appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. ( 16. ) 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. , Mandla on 13. 10. 2008 for serving out the remaining part of the sentence.