I.A. Ansari, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order, dated 29.11.2006, passed, in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimgang, convicting the accused-appellant u/s 376, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 (one) year. The case of the prosecution may, in brief, be described as under: The accused-appellant is a neighbour of PW 1, who, having been divorced by her husband, had been living in her parental house with her step-mother (PW 3), her brother and other members of the family. The accused had given a proposal for marriage, but PW 1 declined. On 05.11.2004, at around midnight, the accused entered into the room, where PW 1 was sleeping on the ground alone, by breaking open the door and showing her a dagger and threatening to kill her if she resisted or shouted, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with PW 1. After committing rape, as soon as the accused left the room, wherein the occurrence had taken place, PW 1 raised hulla and the inmates of her house and neighbours arrived there, the first amongst the members of the family being her step-mother (PW 3). To the members of her family and neighbours, who came there, PW 1 reported that the accused had committed rape on her, when she was sleeping on the ground, by saying her Namaz (i.e. a prayer), because of the fact that it was the month of Ramadan, a lamp was kept lit near her pillow. As the accused had threatened her by showing a dagger, PW 1 did not, out of fear, shout for help. PW 1, then, lodged a written ejahar on 06.11.2004. Treating the said ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), R.K. Nagar Police Station Case No. 81 of 2004, under Sections 457/376/506, IPC, was registered against the accused. 2. As the accused had threatened her by showing a dagger, PW 1 did not, out of fear, shout for help. PW 1, then, lodged a written ejahar on 06.11.2004. Treating the said ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), R.K. Nagar Police Station Case No. 81 of 2004, under Sections 457/376/506, IPC, was registered against the accused. 2. During the course of investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, drew sketch map of the place of occurrence, got PW 1 medically examined and though the police made attempts, during the course of investigation, to apprehend the accused, whose first wife had died and who had married another woman as third wife after his second wife stopped living with him, the police failed and the accused remained absconding. A charge-sheet was, therefore, laid against the accused by showing him as absconder. 3. At the trial, when a charge, u/s 376, IPC, was framed against the accused, he pleaded not guilty thereto. 4. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses, The accused was, then, examined u/s 313, Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offence, which was alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that of denial and the accused-appellant having been forcibly implicated due to the fact that the father of P.W. 1 had sold a plot of land to the accused, the accused was not only unwilling to leave the said plot of land, he had, rather, closed the access to the road, PW 1 had lodged the case by making false allegation of rape. The defence also adduced evidence by examining one witness. 5. Having, however, found the accused guilty of the offence, which he stood charged with, the learned trial Court convicted him accordingly and passed sentence against him as mentioned above. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence, which has been passed against him, the accused, as a convicted person, has preferred this appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. L.N. Dihingia, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the accused-appellant and PW 1 are, admittedly, neighbours. 6. I have heard Mr. L.N. Dihingia, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 7. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted that the accused-appellant and PW 1 are, admittedly, neighbours. It also an admitted case of the prosecution as well as the defence that PW 1 is a divorcee, she having been divorced long before the alleged occurrence took place, and, at the relevant point of time, she used to live, at her parental house, with her step-mother, her brother, one of her sons, namely, Kabir, and others. It is the further admitted case of the prosecution as well as the defence that PW 1 used to sleep alone in one of the rooms of the said house and her son used to sleep in another room. 8. Coupled with the above, it is in the evidence of PW 1 that immediately preceding the occurrence, she was sleeping on the ground with a lamp lying lit near her pillow. 9. Describing the occurrence, PW 1 has deposed that while she was sleeping, as mentioned above, the accused entered into her room by removing the bamboo post by which the door of the room was kept closed and he (accused) threatened to kill her by showing her a dagger if she shouted for help. Out of fear, according to the evidence of PW 1, she did not shout and the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and when the accused left, she shouted and the members of her family and neighbours arrived, her step-mother (PW 3) being the first one to arrive. 10. Though PW 1 has been put to cross-examination, at length, nothing could be elicited from her cross-examination by the defence to show that her evidence was untrue or unreliable or unbelievable. The evidence, given by PW 1, has, in fact, remained wholly unshaken on all material aspects. 11. Close on the heels of the evidence of PW 1, PW 3, who is step-mother of PW 1, has deposed that on the night of the alleged occurrence, she heard PW 1 screaming for help and, when she entered into the room, where PW 1 had been sleeping, PW 1 reported to her that she had been subjected to rape by the accused. To the same effect is the evidence of PW 4, a cousin and a neighbour of PW 1. In fact, PW 4 has also deposed that when he came to the room of PW 1, PW 3 was already present there. These assertions of PW 5 went unchallenged by the defence. In such circumstances, it is natural that PW 3 had been reported about the occurrence by PW 1 before PW 4 came to the place of occurrence, The evidence of PW 3 and PW 4, thus, lends substantial support and credence to the evidence of PW 1. 12. Though PW 2, who is the doctor, and who had, admittedly, examined PW 1, did not find any injury on the person of PW 1 or any sign of her having been put to forcible sexual intercourse, what is crucial and cannot be ignored is the fact that P.W. 1, according to the evidence on record, could not struggle and free herself nor could she run away inasmuch as she was immobilized by putting her in fear by the accused-appellant, because the accused-appellant had, according to the evidence on record, shown a dagger to PW 1 and threatened to kill her if she chose to raise hulla. This apart, the medical examination had, admittedly, taken place after four days of the alleged occurrence. Hence, not having any sign of forcible sexual intercourse or any sexual intercourse on the person of PW 1 is neither unnatural nor unreal. The absence of any injury on the person of PW 1 cannot, in the facts and the attending circumstances of the case, be said to have demolished the credibility of the evidence of PW 1. 13. Further-more, according to the Investigating Officer, the accused was absconding. Though abscondence is, by itself, not sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, abscondence is nonetheless an incriminating circumstance, which has to be taken into account, while determining the guilt or otherwise of an accused. 14. What surfaces from the above discussion is that the prosecution adduced sufficient credible and convincing evidence, proving beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused, by intimidating PW 1, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and committed thereby offence of rape. This Court does not find that the conclusion of guilt, which the learned trial Court has arrived at, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. This Court does not find that the conclusion of guilt, which the learned trial Court has arrived at, suffers from any infirmity, legal or factual. Though the defence has adduced evidence by examining one witness (DW 1), the evidence of this witness is not at all sufficient to show that the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 are untrue, false or cannot be relied upon. Except saying that the accused is a good man, DW 1 could not say anything else. In fact, DW 1 has admitted in her cross-examination by the defence that she does not know as to why she had been called by the accused. 15. Situated thus, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. 16. The conviction of the accused-appellant and/or the sentence, passed against him, do not, therefore, call for any interference. The appeal is, in the considered view of this Court, wholly without merit and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. Send back the LCR.