Judgment Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 22nd July, 1986 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City convicted the accused-Mohar Singh S/o. Shri Moti Mal Meena for the offences under Section 376, 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under: u/S. 376 of IPC: Three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer four months rigorous imprisonment. u/S. 341 of IPC: One months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment of one week. u/S. 323 of IPC: A fine of Rs. 500- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. All these sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2). The nub of the prosecution story as unfolded by the prosecutrix (name withheld) `P' is as under:- That on 30th June, 1985 at about 5-6 pm, the prosecutrix was coming back from well to her house. The accused Mohar Singh Meena was coming from the direction of his village Peeloda. On seeing her, the accused sat in the middle of the way to urinate. The prosecutrix shamefully stopped. When the accused stood after passing urine, the prosecutrix proceeded to her village. It is alleged that the accused suddenly came before her and persuaded to go for coitus whereupon the prosecutrix reacted by pointing slipper (chappal) at him but before that, the accused encountered with a stone on her head. It is further alleged that the accused forcibly caught hold of her and chewed her middle finger of left hand. Thereupon, the prosecutrix also bite his hand. The accused squeezed her breasts and dragged her to `galva' and made her to lie on the ground. She cried but the accused gagged her mouth with her `lugadi'. It is further alleged that the accused lifted her both the legs and in hurried heat forcibly ravished her. She was floundering but the accused tightly pressed her breasts and bite her cheeks, as a result of which she sustained injuries. the accused torn her blouse also, she struggled and endeavored to push him but he left her after fulfilling his erotic sortie only and fled away from there warning her not to disclose this incident to anyone failing which she will be done to death. the accused torn her blouse also, she struggled and endeavored to push him but he left her after fulfilling his erotic sortie only and fled away from there warning her not to disclose this incident to anyone failing which she will be done to death. Her bangles also broke which fell on the ground. On account of injuries and pain she kept on screaming. Meantime, PW-1 Badami, widow of Ramju Jogi of her village, came there and she took her to home. The prosecutrix narrated this incident to her husband who accompanied her to police station Vajirpur, where the prosecutrix lodged FIR Ex. P. 3 and having registered the case the police commenced investigation. (3). The Investigating Officer seized the torn blouse of prosecutrix vide memo Ex. P/4, prepared site plan Ex. P/5, recovered the broken pieces of bangles from the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. P/6, recorded the statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, got both the prosecutrix as also the accused medically examined, drew necessary memos and after usual investigation, the S.H.O. Police Station, Vajirpur sent the accused for trial. (4). The accused was indicted for the charge under Sections 376, 323 and 341 of IPC who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence and pleaded that since the husband of the prosecutrix owed to him some money which he could not repay so he has been falsely implicated in the case. On completion of trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as indicated hereinabove. (5). Heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material available on record. (6). The learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that the prosecution case rests solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix whose statements are wholly unbelievable and unreliable. The incident of rape has not been corroborated by any other independent witness including PW.1 Badami, who is said to have reached on the spot soon after the occurrence. The statements of the prosecutrix have also not been supported by the medical evidence. The learned trial Court has totally ignored the established principle of law and erringly placed reliance upon the sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. The statements of the prosecutrix have also not been supported by the medical evidence. The learned trial Court has totally ignored the established principle of law and erringly placed reliance upon the sole uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. The defence of owed some money to the accused who did not repay as such he has been falsely implicated in this case has not been considered by the trial court. Hence, there being no corroborative evidence on record, it is not safe to convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. (7). Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that in our traditional bound country, a rural woman would not tarnish her own reputation and image by voluntary false claim that she had been raped and defiled. He submits that the evidence of prosecutrix initially shows the intention to commit the rape and attempt to do it at successful completion thereby. Therefore, the true evidence of prosecutrix cannot be jettisoned and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. (8). In order to bring home the offence under Section 376 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had coitus with a woman without her consent and against her will. (9). As per medical examination report Ex. P/8, PW.6 Dr.P.C. Sethi found the following injuries on the person of prosecutrix. 1. Abrasion, 1/3" x 1/8", on left breast, upper and outer quadrant, 2. Contust abrasion, 3/4 x 1/8" on the back of terminal phalanges of left middle finger below nail, 3. Lacerated wound 1" x/4" super ficial on left parietal region closed to mid line, dried clotted blood was present, 4. Contused abrasion, 3/4" x 3/4" and 1/10" x 1/10" on the back of right elbow, 5. Tenderness 2" x 2" on right flanks. During medical examination, Dr.Sethi found some white stains, may be of semen on her `gaghara'. Thus he sealed the same and sent for chemical examination. (10). The medical examination report (F.S.L. Report) Ex. P/2 reveals that human semen was detected on `gaghara'. (11) After arrest, the accused Mohar Singh was also medically examined and as per report Ex. P/1 following injury was found:- "3/4" x 1/2" with circular linear ring of bluish-black pigment colour. Thus he sealed the same and sent for chemical examination. (10). The medical examination report (F.S.L. Report) Ex. P/2 reveals that human semen was detected on `gaghara'. (11) After arrest, the accused Mohar Singh was also medically examined and as per report Ex. P/1 following injury was found:- "3/4" x 1/2" with circular linear ring of bluish-black pigment colour. 1" x 1" round area is clear within the ring on the middle one-third of the lateral aspect of the right arm." The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has admitted this medical examination report in evidence. (12). Having reflected over the submissions advanced by both the parties and scanned the prosecution evidence, it is found that the prosecution case wholly rests on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix. There is no ocular or circumstantial evidence to corroborate it except the immediate appearance on site of PW-1 Badami after the occurrence. (13). Now turning to the evidence of the prosecutrix who in her deposition has stated that while coming back from the well to her home at about 5-6 pm in evening on the day of incident, she came across with the accused Mohar Singh who after putting her cloths set on the way to urinate. The prosecutrix seeing him, shamefully turned her back and stayed for a while. Therefore, the accused persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with him. She reacted to this wild proposition by pointing slipper at him, then the accused entangled and squeezed her breasts. She has further stated that the accused dragged her to `galva' and made her to lie on the ground. He lifted her peticote and chewed her finger, whereupon, she also gave him a teeth bite. Thereafter, the accused forcibly ravished her against her will. She cried and having heard her secrams, PW-1 Badami who was causing her goats to graze nearby appeared there. On seeing her the accused after fulfilling his wild thirst of lust fled from there. The prosecutrix was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination in the Court, but she has repeatedly deposed the same version. (14). In searching cross-examination nothing such has come out which influence the substratum of the prosecution case. (15). PW-1 Badami has deposed that she takes her goats everyday to jungle for grazing. She heard the screams in the direction of `galva' which was near the way. (14). In searching cross-examination nothing such has come out which influence the substratum of the prosecution case. (15). PW-1 Badami has deposed that she takes her goats everyday to jungle for grazing. She heard the screams in the direction of `galva' which was near the way. Having heard the shrieks, she reached there are found one boy running there, who was later on identified as Mohar Singh. The prosecutrix was sitting there whose head was bleeding. The prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to the witness who later on took her to home. This witness has also been subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination but nothing adverse has come out. (16). PW-2 Radhey is the husband of the prosecutrix who has deposed the same statements which were narrated to him by his wife. PW.3 Dharm Singh is the witness of recovery of blouse, site plan and seizure of broken bangles from the place of occurrence. PW.4 Giriraj is said to have been apprised with the incident, but he has turned hostile. Otherwise too, his hearsay evidence is of no use to the accused. PW-6 Dr. P.C. Sethi is stated to have medically examined the prosecutrix. PW.7 Bhanwar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW.8 Shri Junglia Ram Head Constable is found to have handed over two sealed packets to PW.9 Puran Mal who deposited the same in Forensic Science Laboratory. (17). Having reflected and ruminated the testimony of prosecutrix, nothing of the sort has been suggested to her, the reply of which could make her statements unworthiness of credence. In her deposition, she has stated those very facts before the court which find place in the first information report Ex. P/3. The occurence of this case took place on 29th June, 1985 at 5-6 pm in the evening and the report has been lodged by the prosecutrix on 30th June, 1985 at 10.15 in the morning. The place of occurence is found to be 6 kms. away from the police station, hence it is found that no delay has been caused in lodging the FIR as the husband of the prosecutrix on the fateful day was staying on his well with his mother in jungle. The prosecutrix alone had went to her home. So one Chothi Lal came on the well and informed him with the incident. The prosecutrix alone had went to her home. So one Chothi Lal came on the well and informed him with the incident. Since the husband of the prosecutrix took time to reach the home he accompanied his wife in the next morning to the police station for lodging the FIR. (18). Albeit, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix are galore but he has not been able to point out even a single contradiction which may hold the testimony of the prosecutrix untrustworthy. There are minor discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix but they seem to be easily reconcilable. There is no contradiction on any material particular. (19). Turning to the medical examination report Ex. P/2, the prosecutrix is found to have sustained five injuries on her person during the commission of the offence of rape. It is true that the pubic hair of the prosecutrix at the time of examination were not found matted and there was no mark of injury on the inner surface of things but mere this fact does not falsify the prosecution case. Absence of injury on any part of the body of victim may some times probabalise absence of any coitus but in the instant case the prosecutrix sustained five injuries on her breasts, parietal region, back, on right flanks and back of right elbow. She is found to have sustained a contused abrasion 3/4" x 1/8" on the back of terminal phalanges of left middle finger below nail, a mention of which she made in her report Ex.P/2 while lodging FIR. The offence of rape committed by the accused is further supported by his own medical examination report Ex. P/1 wherein, he sustained one injury measuring 3/4" x 1/2" with circular linear ring of bluish-black pigmentation. This injury was in 1" x 1" round area. Though, the doctor has opined that tooth bite like pattern is not clear but this fact cannot be ignored that he was examined after one month and twenty days of the occurrence i.e. on 20th August, 1985. This is the reason that the injury was of bluish-black pigment. (20). The prosecutrix has reported that the accused forcibly dragged her to `galva', made her to lie on the ground and thereafter, in a hurried heat ravished her without her consent. This is the reason that the injury was of bluish-black pigment. (20). The prosecutrix has reported that the accused forcibly dragged her to `galva', made her to lie on the ground and thereafter, in a hurried heat ravished her without her consent. Section 114-A of Indian Evidence Act contemplates: "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." This Section envisages that where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question 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 should presume that she did not consent. In the absence of a woman's consent the most essential feature of actus reus is rape. In the present times, it is well settled that if evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. In the case on hand, I find the testimony of prosecutrix trustworthy. Despite lengthy cross-examination her evidence could not be shattered. Even her testimony gets corroboration from the statements of PW-1 Badami who soon after hearing the screams reached the place of occurrence and found the accused running who was identified to be Mohar Singh. (21). The case which had laid down guidelines with respect to the treatment of the victim's evidence in a rape in a most direct and practical way is the judgment in Bhagwada Bhoginibhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 . The Apex Court held: "(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The Apex Court held: "(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape-recorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6). Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnesses by him- Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment." The Apex Court further held: "(9)...Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the back drop of the social ecology of the western world. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turnkey basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian society, and its profile." (22). In his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has claimed innocence. He has submitted that since the husband of the prosecutrix owed some money to the accused which he did not repay so he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is highly astonishing that the accused has offered this explanation but he has put this suggestion neither to the prosecutrix nor to her husband PW-2 Radhey, during their cross-examination. Thus, the explanation is found to be untrue, false and misconceived. (23). Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the western and European countries therefore, it must be realised that ordinarily a woman will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity. The testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy and there appears no ground on record to jettison her evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has critically examined the whole prosecution case and properly appreciated the evidence of prosecutrix in great details. The evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. The impugned judgment is cogent and well meritted. It does not suffer from any infirmity. (24). In the ultimate analysis, the charge under Section 376, 323 and 341 are found to be well established against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. I find myself in unison with the findings of conviction arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City and thus the appeal deserves to be dismissed. (25). For these reasons, the appeal filed by the accused appellant-Mohar Singh S/o Shri Moti Lal by caste Meena, R/o Village Peeloda District Sawai Madhopur being devoid of merits, stands dismissed and the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused appellant in the offences under Section 376, 341 and 323 of IPC vide impugned judgment dated 22nd July, 1986 are maintained. The appellant is on bail as such his bail bonds stands cancelled. The trial Court is directed to issue a warrant of arrest against the accused appellant to serve out the sentences imposed imposed upon him.