Judgment: 1. Appeal is taken up for final hearing with the consent of respective counsel. 2. The appellant had initially filed Criminal Revision Application No.143/2009, challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2009 passed in Sessions Case No. 6/2009 by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. By the said order dated 12th August, 2009, this Court (Coram: Ganoo, J.) allowed the conversion of Revision into an Appeal, at the request of learned Advocate for the applicant. Thus, by the present Appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code ( In short “IPC”), whereby he was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- in default, to suffer further RI for six months. 3. The facts in brief, filtering out unnecessary details, are these: An illiterate widow, aged about 38 years, lodged a complaint giving rise to filing an FIR bearing No.146/2008 on 30th June, 2008 registered at Chandrapur City Police Station for offence punishable under section 376 IPC. It was reported that on 30.06.2008 at about 11.00 a.m. while the first informant was busy in household chores in the kitchen room and was all alone, the appellant-convict-Balaji Akulwar entered in the kitchen. He was in an inebriated condition. All of sudden, he started pulling her nine-yard - Kasta saree. The first informant was naturally frightened to the hilt and shouted “save, save”; resisted the attempt on the part of the appellant; however, the appellant untied her saree overpowered her, in the process, she fell down. The appellant removed his trouser and underwear, slept on her person and forcibly indulged into sexual intercourse with her. Hearing the shrill cry of the prosecutrix, from the backside door, the niece of the first informant entered and seeing the incident she too started shouting. Ladies around the neighbourhood of the first informant gathered and, as such, the appellant took to his heels. Thereafter the first informant accompanied with her maternal aunt, went to Chandrapur City Police Station and lodged the complaint against the appellant. It appears that immediately the first informant was referred to a Hospital where she was medically examined, with observations indicating that her hymen was found ruptured. Thereafter the first informant accompanied with her maternal aunt, went to Chandrapur City Police Station and lodged the complaint against the appellant. It appears that immediately the first informant was referred to a Hospital where she was medically examined, with observations indicating that her hymen was found ruptured. During the course of investigation on the same day, the appellant was zeroed down by the Police. It also appears that during the course of investigation, clothes of the first informant were seized and referred to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Dhantoli, Nagpur. The appellant-Balaji too was also referred for medical examination. 4. The appellant convict was charge-sheeted and was sentenced to the Court of Sessions at Chandrapur on 7th January 2009. The charge was framed against the appellant for offence punishable u/s 376 of the IPC (Exh. 15), to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His plea was recorded accordingly at Exh.16. 5. In order to prove the offence punishable under section 376 IPC, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses and closed its case. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed that he is falsely implicated in the case. Thus, after hearing submissions, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur found the appellant guilty for the said offence and convicted him as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment. 6. In support of the Appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when the alleged incident in question occurred, the niece of prosecutrix, by name, Sharda had rushed inside the house and went outside and shouted calling neighbouring ladies for help, said Sharda was not examined by the prosecution. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, Sharda was a necessary witness and her non-examination by the prosecution as a witness, must be considered fatal to the prosecution case. 7. To counter this submission, learned APP contended that said Sharda, according to prosecutrix, had come into the house and went out calling neighbouring ladies for help. Her evidence would not have furthered the prosecution case and, therefore, she was not a necessary witness. 7. To counter this submission, learned APP contended that said Sharda, according to prosecutrix, had come into the house and went out calling neighbouring ladies for help. Her evidence would not have furthered the prosecution case and, therefore, she was not a necessary witness. It is also contended that one Lalitabai, who was residing in the neighbourhood and an independent witness, who after hearing the shouts for help of Mayabai as “save, save)” from her house; as also the presence of Sharda Marathe, are the material witnesses. Lalitabai (PW 1) deposed that Mayabai had raised shouts “save, save” from her house. On hearing the shrill cry, Lalita went towards the prosecutrix’s house, Sharda and Prabhabai were also along with her; they went near the door of the house of prosecutrix, they called her from outside, who came near them. Mayabai was in a naked condition and she was wrapped in a quilt around her body. They had also seen appellant inside the house, who on seeing them, ran away. Mayabai had immediately disclosed the incident of rape by the appellant to Lalita. Apart from this evidence, the learned APP contended that the prosecution has also examined the Medical Officer Dr. Swati Telang who had examined the prosecutrix and issued medical certificate (Exh.26) which indicated that prosecutrix was brought for examination with history of alleged sexual assault, on 30.6.2008 at 11.00 a.m. by a known person the appellant Balaji. On local examination of private parts, her hymen was found torn multifarious. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the appeal also contended that although it is alleged that forcible sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant, but there were no injuries noticed during medical examination of the prosecutrix and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have granted benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. The learned Advocate for the appellant sought to rely upon the ruling in Suresh Govinda Nagdive vs. State of Maharashtra : 2008 Cr.L.J. 2943, to argue that when prosecutrix was, according to her, laid down on the ground and raped by the accused, the Doctor could have found injuries on her person. But in this case, no injuries were noticed by the Medical Officer. But in this case, no injuries were noticed by the Medical Officer. It is contended that in the absence of opinion of the Medical Officer regarding injuries, it would be hazardous to accept the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix or to base conviction and, thus, the learned trial Judge committed an error of law in placing reliance upon the evidence of prosecutrix, that too without sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence. It is, therefore, argued that the appellant is entitled for an order of clear acquittal. Learned APP, on the other hand, contended that the trial Court made references to the rulings from the highest Court of the country, in order to arrive at the conclusion of conviction and, therefore, contentions on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted for the obvious reason that there was ample evidence on record to conclude that appellant was guilty of the offence punishable u./s 376 IPC. 9. Learned Advocate for the appellant further relied on the rulings in (1) Yerumalla vs. State of A.P.: (2006 ) 9 SCC 713 ; (2) Ramdas vs. State of Maharashtra : (2007) 2 SCC 170 ; (3) Shiva vs. State : 2007(6) AIR Bom.R. 690; (4) Suresh vs. State : 2008 Cri.L.J. 2943 and Lobha vs. State : 2008 Cri.L.J. 3210. 10. It does appear that the learned Sessions Judge while dissecting the evidence on record, did consider the relevant provisions of Section 375 of the IPC to observe that slightest penetration is sufficient to attract the provisions of Sec. 375 IPC, by taking recourse to the rulings in State of Punjab vs. Gurmitsingh : AIR 1996 SC 1393 quoting observations of the Apex Court. Furthermore, reference is also made to the ruling in Bodhisattva Gautam vs. Miss Subhara Chakraborty : AIR 1996 SC 922 and Omprakash vs. State of U.P. : 2003 Cri.L.J. 2193. Thus, legal position appears to have been considered in its right perspective, in the light of the aforesaid rulings in order to arrive at a finding that the prosecutrix, an illiterate widow of 38 years, deposed in a most natural way. It is to be noted that she had no animosity towards the appellant to falsely implicate him in a heinous offence of rape, as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life. It is to be noted that she had no animosity towards the appellant to falsely implicate him in a heinous offence of rape, as the onslaught of a social stigma may haunt her for life. It is also observed that the defence put up by the accused was not at all convincing nor probable. 11. I have gone through the entire evidence minutely, led by the prosecution. There was no reason for an enmity between the prosecutrix and the appellant (convict) so as to implicate him in such a serious crime. The legal position in respect of the offence punishable u/s 376 of the IPC is clear that the conviction can be based upon sole testimony of the prosecutrix/victim without looking for further corroboration because prosecutrix in such a case is not treated as an accomplice, in the crime. In the present case, the complaint was lodged immediately on the same day, there was no reason for the prosecutrix to put her reputation at stake by lodging the complaint against the appellant. On local examination of her private parts, it is revealed that her hymen was found ruptured. It is not necessary that in every case the prosecutrix must suffer injuries due to forcible sexual intercourse. The offence had occurred in the house, inside the kitchen room and taking advantage of the fact that the house of the prosecutrix was open and finding her lonely in the house, the appellant had entered in her house, starting pulling her nine-yard saree, overpowered her and committed forcible sexual intercourse. Therefore, absence of injuries on her person could not be of any consequence in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The testimony of the prosecutrix stood on high pedestal than an injured witness because an injured witness has injury into his physical form while victim of rape is injured physically, psychologically as well as emotionally. Considering the legal position, therefore, I think the trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of the prosecutrix, appreciating the entire evidence on record and correctly arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had committed an offence punishable u/s 376 of the IPC in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There was no cogent reason to look at the evidence with suspicion. There was no cogent reason to look at the evidence with suspicion. Sufficient and reliable evidence appears to have been led by the prosecution which was considered by the trial Court in the light of the principles set out by the rulings of the Apex Court. On the background facts of the present case, therefore, the conviction was proper, legal and correct and does not warrant any interference. 12. As regards sentence of imprisonment, I think the sentence was appropriate, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, Appeal is dismissed.