Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, teekamgarh in S. T. No. 137/91, decided on 25. 2. 94. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 376, 506-B and 323 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years, six months aad three months respectively by the impugned judgment. All the sentences were to run concurrently. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on24. 5. 91 about 10 oclock in the morning, when prosecutrix had gone to her beda (an enclosure) to collect the logs, appellant bhanu Singh came inside her beda, finding her alone, fell her on the ground and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. When prosecutrix shouted for help, appellant gagged her mouth and threatened to kill her if she shouted. On being informed of the incident, prosecutrixs husband Heeralal and his brothers bansilal and Parikshat reached there. Then appellant left the prosecutrix and fled away from beda. While fleeing he assaulted her husband Heeralal and his brothers by farsa and caused hurt to them. The FIR of the incident was lodged by the prosecutrix at Police Station, Lidhora. On the basis of her report, an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. Prosecutrix, her husband and his brothers were sent for medical examination. On being arrested, appellant was also medically examined and found competent to perform the sexual act. The petticoat of the prosecutrix and her vaginal slide prepared during her medical examination as well as underwear of the appellant and his semen slide were seized by the Police and were sent for chemical examination. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 376, 323, 324 and 506-B of IPC and was put to trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANT denied the various charges framed against him and pleaded false implication due to old enmity and land dispute. According to appellant, Heeralal, the husband of the prosecutrix alongwith his brothers had quarrelled with him, assaulted and caused hurt to him and lodged a false report of rape against him through his wife. ( 5. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty of committing the offences under Section 376, 506-B and 323 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. ( 6. ( 5. ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty of committing the offences under Section 376, 506-B and 323 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of false and concocted testimony of the interested witnesses despite negative medical evidence and erroneously rejected the defence evidence. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. Prosecutrix (P. W-8) categorically deposed in her evidence that at the relevant time about 10oclock in the morning when she had gone to her beda (enclosure) to pick up the logs, appellant Bhanu Singh came there, caught hold of her, threw her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her. Prosecutrix shouted for help, but the appellant gagged her mouth and also intimidated and threatened to kill her in case she shouted. According to prosecutrix (P. W-8), when her husband Heeralal and his brothers Bansilal and parikshat came there appellant fled away causing hurt to her husband Heeralal and his brothers Bansilal and Parikshat. Prosecutrix then went to the Police station Lidhora alongwith her husband Heeralal and his brother Bansilal and lodged the FIR (Ex. P-12), which was recorded by Sub-Inspector S. K. Goswami (P. W-11 ). ( 9. ) THE evidence of the prosecutrix (P. W-8) also stood corroborated by the testimony of Heeralal (P. W-5) and his brother Bansilal (P. W-9 ). P. W-5 Heeralal also deposed in his evidence that on being informed by Khanju (P. W-6), he had gone to his beda and found appellant coming out from his house and his wife weeping, who told him that appellant had ravished her. When Heeralal (P. W-5)asked the appellant why did he do so, appellant assaulted him by blunt side of farsa. On his shouting, his brothers Bansilal and Parikshat came there. Then appellant assaulted his brother Bansilal and Parikshat too. ( 10. When Heeralal (P. W-5)asked the appellant why did he do so, appellant assaulted him by blunt side of farsa. On his shouting, his brothers Bansilal and Parikshat came there. Then appellant assaulted his brother Bansilal and Parikshat too. ( 10. ) BANSILAL (P. W-9) also corroborated this fact that when he saw appellant assaulting his brother Heeralal and tried to rescue him, appellant Bhanu Singh assaulted him and by that time his brothers wife (prosecutrix) also came there and informed him that appellant had spoiled her; then they had gone to the Police station to lodge the report. Although Parikshat (P. W-1) turned hostile to prosecution, yet he supported the fact that appellant had assaulted him and his brothers Heeralal and Banshilal. It is also borne out from the evidence of Jagbhan singh (P. W-7) that he had seen appellant Bhanu Singh following Heeralal and they had a quarrel and he had seen injuries on the person of Heeralal, Parikshat and Bansilal. It is also evident from the testimony of Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W-3) that certain injuries were found on the person of Heeralal (P. W-5), Bansilal (P. W-9)and Parikshat (P. W-1 ). ( 11. ) THE main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has been that the husband of the prosecutrix, namely, Heeralal and his brothers had assaulted the appellant and caused him head injury and had lodged a false report of rape against the appellant in order to save their own skin. However, the evidence of dr. V. K. Jain (D. W-2), examined as a defence witness, indicates that upon medical examination of the appellant on 28. 5. 91, one abrasion with clotted blood over his nose and another abrasion over his cheek were found and no head injury was found on his person. There was also no suggestion to Dr. V. K. Jain (D. W-2) that he omitted to mention his head injury or overlooked it. ( 12. ) ON the other hand, P. W-8 Prosecutrix as well as her husband Heeralal (P. W-5) and his brother Bansilal (P. W-9) have denied the suggestion given in their cross-examination that they had assaulted the appellant causing him hurt and lodged a false report of rape against the appellant. ( 13. ( 12. ) ON the other hand, P. W-8 Prosecutrix as well as her husband Heeralal (P. W-5) and his brother Bansilal (P. W-9) have denied the suggestion given in their cross-examination that they had assaulted the appellant causing him hurt and lodged a false report of rape against the appellant. ( 13. ) IT is also borne out from the testimony of S. K. Goswami (P. W-11) coupled with the evidence of prosecutrix (P. W-8) that the FIR of the incident of rape was lodged at Police Station Lidhora on 24. 5. 91 itself shortly after the incident. It does not appeal to reason that rustic villagers like prosecutrix (PW-8) and her husband Heeralal (P. W-5) and his brother Bansilal (P. W-9) would concoct or manipulate the story of rape against the appellant within short span of two hours. Had there been a simple incident of marpeet over land dispute in which the three persons of the complainant side received injuries, they could have lodged the report of assault and causing hurt against the appellant and there was no need to take the prosecutrix to the Police Station. It also does not appeal to reason, that the prosecutrix or her husband would lodge a false report of rape against appellant at the cost of her modesty, honour and reputation in a case of assault and marpeet. ( 14. ) EVEN otherwise, upon close scrutiny of entire evidence on record, the incident of rape as narrated by the prosecutrix (P. W-8) does not appear to be false and concocted. Prosecutrix (P. W-8) was meticulously cross-examined, but nothing has been elicited so as to distrust her version. The mere fact that she had gone to the Police Station with her husband, his brother and two other prominent persons of the village, does not vitiate her testimony. There was nothing concrete on record to indicate that these two persons had any enmity with the appellant and would persuade the prosecutrix to lodge a false report. ( 15. ) SIMILARLY, the fact that Dr. Madhu Jain (P. W-10), who examined the prosecutrix (P. W-*8) next day on 25. 5. 91, did not find any external or internal injury over her body, also does not create any doubt on the testimony of the prosecutrix (P. W-8 ). Dr. ( 15. ) SIMILARLY, the fact that Dr. Madhu Jain (P. W-10), who examined the prosecutrix (P. W-*8) next day on 25. 5. 91, did not find any external or internal injury over her body, also does not create any doubt on the testimony of the prosecutrix (P. W-8 ). Dr. Madhu Jain (P. W-10) had opined that as the prosecutrix was a married woman, it was not possible to give any definite opinion about commission of rape with her. The Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. N. K. reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court page 1812 has also held that the absence of visible marks of the injuries of the prosecutrix on the date of her medical examination would not necessarily mean that she had not suffered any injury or that she had not offered any resistance at the time of commission of rape and absence of injury on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of allegations or an evidence of consent on the part of the prosecutrix. ( 16. ) THE statement made by the prosecutrix in her cross-examination that she sustained injuries on her back, appears to have been obtained on the suggestions given during cross-examination, because obviously it would not have been possible for her to have seen the injuries caused on her back. Such type of improvements are natural even in the statement of a truthful witness and do not vitiate her entire evidence. ( 17. ) IN fact, after careful scanning, the evidence of the prosecutrix (P. W-8) is found to be natural, clear, cogent and trustworthy. The statement of an independent witness Khanju Singh (P. W-6) that about 10 oclock in the morning he heard the cries of the prosecutrix from her beda, also lend assurance to the truthfulness of the version made by the prosecutrix (P. W-8 ). The injuries found by Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W-3) on the person of Heeralal (P. W-5) and his brother Bansilal (P. W-9)also supports her version that after the incident appellant had chased her husband and caused hurt to him and his brother Bansilal. ( 18. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and the prompt lodging of the FIR, the incident of rape as narrated by the prosecutrix (P. W-8) is not found to be false or concocted. ( 18. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and the prompt lodging of the FIR, the incident of rape as narrated by the prosecutrix (P. W-8) is not found to be false or concocted. On the other hand, her evidence is found natural, truthful and trustworthy and it inspires confidence and does not create any doubt or suspicion as to its credibility. The description of the incident, as given by the prosecutrix (P. W-8) in para 1 of her deposition, clearly indicates that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the appellant against her will. ( 19. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the trial court, for the offence under Section 376 of IPC after discarding the defence evidence for cogent reasons, does not suffer from any infirmity and deserves to be affirmed. ( 20. ) IN view of the testimony of prosecutrix (P. W-8), her husband Heeralal (P. W-5) and his brother Bansilal (P. W-9) coupled with the medical evidence of Dr. R. K. Jain (P. W.-3), as on record, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 506-B and under Section 323 of IPC for causing hurt to Heeralal and Bansilal also does not suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant any interference in appeal. ( 21. ) THERE are also no special or adequate reasons to reduce the various sentences imposed on the appellant. Appeal has no merit. ( 22. ) APPEAL, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Appellant is on bail. He shall forthwith surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of his sentence. Appeal dismissed.