JUDGMENT H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the accused against the order of conviction and sentence passed in SC 125/2009 on 23.1.2010 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga. 2. It is stated, complainant and accused are relatives and residents of Mudbal-K village of Jewargi Taluk. On 23.9.2008 around 2.00 p.m. when the complainant was alone in the house, the accused having committed a tress pass, entered the house of the complainant to commit rape on her. He forced the victim complainant to sleep with him and when she refused and started crying, at that time accused by showing knife threatened the victim and assaulted her with hands and fell her on the ground and committed forcible rape. Again on 11.2.2008 around 10.00 a.m. when the complainant was going to the field in the morning, near the land of one Siddanagouda, the accused having assaulted her with hands held her saree and outraged her modesty. Once again on 12.12.2008 in the evening around 5.00 p.m., when the complainant was returning from bus stand towards her house accused met her and started abusing her in the public stating that she shall not file a case against him and also threatened her with dire consequences. The said incident is witnessed by CWs 6 to 8. Later she filed a complaint and it was registered in Crime No. 389/2008. The police after investigation, filed the charge sheet. After committal of the case under Section 209 Cr.P.C. on making over the case to the additional court, the said court has framed the charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 376, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, prosecution having examined PWs 1 to 15, got marked 13 documents and MO-1 material object. After raising six issues for consideration, after hearing answering the issues accordingly, the trial court has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, it is also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to the victim, while acquitting the accused of the other offences with which he was charged. 10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, it is also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 8,000/- to the victim, while acquitting the accused of the other offences with which he was charged. As against this order of conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed. 4. Heard the counsel representing the parties. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complaint is lodged nearly after three months of the alleged incident and there is no supporting medical evidence. Since the parents of the victim girl have asked to marry the victim, when the accused and his parents refused, a false complaint came to be filed. Without there being corroborative evidence the trial court committed an error convicting the accused victim without taking note of the fact of absence of any medical evidence and also the delay in lodging the FIR. The evidence of other witnesses were all interested and they are circumstantial witnesses. There are no eye witness to the incident and has accordingly sought acquittal. In support of his argument, counsel has relied upon several decisions which I shall refer to in the course of my order. 6. It is the submission of the Government Pleader that it is a clear case of forcible rape of the victim at knife point and also by intimidating the complainant the accused forcibly committed rape on her. Though there is delay in lodging the FIR, there is proper explanation offered. According to him, it is elicited in the evidence in the natural course as to the conduct of the accused in committing rape and also abusing in the public and intimidating the victim not to file a complaint. Virtually the incident has been narrated by the victim as has happened. The delay is explainable. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order of conviction and sentence of the accused does not call for interference. Virtually the incident has been narrated by the victim as has happened. The delay is explainable. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order of conviction and sentence of the accused does not call for interference. Accordingly in support of his arguments, Government Pleader has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajinder @ Raju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - Crl.A 670/2003 decided on 7.7.2009 wherein referring to another judgment, it is observed- The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. 7. He also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dildar Singh vs. State of Punjab - 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 129, to contend that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same and that the medical examination after three months cannot be expected to corroborate evidence of forcible sexual intercourse. 8. In the light of the arguments advanced the points that arise for consideration are: Whether trial court is justified in holding that the accused committed rape on the victim on 23.9.2008 as alleged; Whether prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape on the victim at knife point, thereby the trial court was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC? 9. The evidence of the prosecutrix plays a vital role as there are no eye witnesses to the incident except her self testimony. What is not in dispute is, the victim as well as the accused are the residents of the same village namely Mudbal-K village, Jewargi taluk. 9. The evidence of the prosecutrix plays a vital role as there are no eye witnesses to the incident except her self testimony. What is not in dispute is, the victim as well as the accused are the residents of the same village namely Mudbal-K village, Jewargi taluk. It is also noted that the accused is none other than the cousin/maternal uncle's son of the victim. The defense taken by the accused is that when he refused to marry the victim, a false complaint has been filed after a lapse of three months to implicate him. 10. In the evidence of the victim what is noted is, about one year prior to the incident when she was alone in the house, the accused having entered the house of the victim imposed upon the victim to sleep with him, when she refused and started crying, the accused at knife point, committed forcible rape on her. She has further narrated that accused having gagged her mouth fell her on the ground and having undressed her had forcible intercourse with her and also threatened her with a knife point not to disclose this fact to anybody or else he will take away her life. Fearing for her life, she did not disclose the rape committed on her by the accused to anybody. She has specifically stated that the accused committed rape on her between 2 to 3 p.m. thereafter, he ran away from her house and that her parents returned from the field around 4.00 p.m. and she did not disclose the act of committing rape by the accused on her. 11. Further the evidence of victim is that again when the accused met her near the land of one Siddanngouda, he once again forced her to sleep with him and she refused. When the accused met her near the bus stand on some other day when she was returning to her house, near Ambedkar Katte once again he threatened her not to disclose the act committed on her or else he will kill her with a knife. She also identified the knife from which he has threatened her as MO-1. 12. In the cross examination, she has stated that she is an illiterate lady and accused is none other than the son of her maternal uncle. She also identified the knife from which he has threatened her as MO-1. 12. In the cross examination, she has stated that she is an illiterate lady and accused is none other than the son of her maternal uncle. She admitted that herself and accused were going to coolie work along with her parents and also admitted that near Ambedkar Katta a galata took place for half an hour and about 15 to 20 persons have gathered there. Further she admitted that there is no bleeding on her as a consequence of rape committed on her by the accused. To the suggestion that her parents intended to celebrate her marriage with the accused but the accused refused to marry her stating that her character is not good, she has denied the same. She also specifically denied the suggestion that he refused to marry her and she is deposing falsely to implicate the accused in this regard. So far as the evidence of Santosh/PW 5, the alleged eye witness to the incident between the accused and victim, he has supported the version of Parashuram/PW 12, and of course he has supported the version of the prosecution. According to him, he and CW 7 - Channappa were sitting near Ambedkar Katte in the village. When the complainant was proceeding towards her house, at that time, accused assaulted the complainant with hands stating that she intended to lodge a complaint against him. However he has denied the suggestion put by the defense to the contrary. PW 6 - Basappa is none other than the father of the victim who has deposed to the fact that when the victim (his daughter) was alone in the house, he had been to land, at that time accused committed forcibly intercourse on his daughter, this incident has been informed after two months of the incident. It is further stated that since accused gave life threat to his daughter by showing knife if she disclosed the said fact before anybody, she has disclosed the same earlier. Of course, he denied the suggestion that he intended to perform the marriage of the victim with the accused and when he refused, there is a false complaint filed. Of course PW-7 Chandappa supported the version of the prosecution regarding the subsequent incident that has taken place near Ambedkar Katte. 13. Of course, he denied the suggestion that he intended to perform the marriage of the victim with the accused and when he refused, there is a false complaint filed. Of course PW-7 Chandappa supported the version of the prosecution regarding the subsequent incident that has taken place near Ambedkar Katte. 13. The doctor one Sanyojita/PW 14 has examined the victim on 14.12.2008 and she has referred the victim to the Pathologist and also to a Radiologist. According to the Radiologist and Dentist, the victim is aged more than 18 years. There was no evidence/presence of dead or alive spermatozoa. She has also opined that there was no recent evidence of sexual intercourse. But, however the victim was used to the act similar to that of sexual intercourse. 14. The evidence of PW 12 - Parashuram is to the effect that he was sitting near Ambedkar Katte in the village and when the complainant was proceeding towards her house, accused assaulted the complainant stating that she is intending to lodge a complaint against him to the police. He later separated him. After the incident, complainant went to the police station and lodged a complaint. Nothing worth is elicited in his cross-examination. 16. The evidence of PW 6, father of the victim who is also a hear say evidence is that it is not disclosed to him about the accused committing rape on the victim at knife point; she had not told this fact being afraid but later, she lodged a complaint when the accused gave a life threat near Ambedkar Katte. Another independent witness PW 7 Chandappa has also deposed stating that complainant has informed that she was going to her land and accused committed forcible rape on her at knife point and also had assaulted her near Ambedkar Katte. At that time, himself and PW 6 were present. Nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination. The trial court looking into the evidence on record, while rejecting the stand of the accused that he had been falsely implicated in the case, convicted him for the offence under S. 376 IPC. 17. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for appellant is, there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and also in order to coerce the accused to marry the victim, a false complaint came to be filed and no such incident has taken place. 17. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for appellant is, there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and also in order to coerce the accused to marry the victim, a false complaint came to be filed and no such incident has taken place. Even otherwise, complainant is a consenting party. Later, with the greed of marrying the accused, she has given false evidence. In support of his argument counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vijayan vs. State of Kerala - 2009 (3) SCC Crimes 585 to contend that when there is delay in filing the complaint purely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix that too after seven months of the date of alleged incident, in the absence of any other supporting evidence, it would be unsafe to convict the accused solely based on the testimony of the prosecutrix. The judgment of Division Bench in the case of State of Karnataka by Srinivasapura Police vs. Krishnappa 2004 (1) KCCR 656 is relied upon to contend that conviction based on the sole witness of the victim depends upon the credibility of her evidence. When the evidence is available but it goes violently against the prosecution case, it would be unsafe to ignore the medical evidence and convict the accused. Counsel has also relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Alamelu & Anr. vs. State 2011 (1) SCC Crimes 688 wherein it is stated, if the victim is a minor, the possibility of false implication by the father cannot be ruled out because the victim girl could have run away to avoid arranged marriage and also to contend that when the prosecutrix had several opportunities to protest and raise a alarm, she did not do so and conviction based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not sustainable. One more decision is also relied upon i.e., on the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umesha - 2003 (4) KCCR SN 337 to contend that when medical evidence was almost nil and the evidence of the victim almost unreliable, accused was acquitted. Accordingly, appellant's counsel submitted that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is unbelievable and also there is no medical evidence. Accordingly, appellant's counsel submitted that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is unbelievable and also there is no medical evidence. The evidence given by the prosecutrix is only to falsely implicate the accused and there is no resistance at the time of commission of the offence much less there is no hue and cry so as to bring to the notice of the public at large and submitted that victim is a consenting party and the accused has been falsely implicated in the case. 18. Learned Addl. SPP has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Reminder's case cited supra wherein the Apex Court held that it is debatable whether such an act was committed by the accused with the consent of the prosecutrix or not and that the prosecutrix in her deposition has categorically, clearly and unequivocally stated that accused committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and has threatened her with a dagger when she refused to go with him. The Apex Court has also opined that the courts must, while evaluating the evidence, remain alive to the fact that in case of rape no self-respecting woman would come forward to the court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In the case involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to thrown an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 19. Learned Addl. SPP has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dildar Singh's case cited supra with regard to delay in filing the FIR. It is stated, in case of sexual offences, delay in not filing the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same. The delay has the effect of putting the court on guard to search if any explanation is offered for the delay and if offered, whether it is satisfactory. 20. In the case on hand, the version of the complainant victim is, for the first time when the victim was alone in the house accused having entered the house, committed rape on her forcibly at knife point. 20. In the case on hand, the version of the complainant victim is, for the first time when the victim was alone in the house accused having entered the house, committed rape on her forcibly at knife point. Subsequently, when she was going to her land, once again the accused is said to have committed rape on her. On coming to know of the same that she would file a complaint, the accused near Ambedkar Katte in the village is said to have threatened her and the same is witnessed by some of the witnesses apart from the father of the victim. The non-disclosure of the fact is probably because of the fact that accused was a relative and also he has threatened the victim with dire consequences. When repeatedly the accused obstructed and forced the victim for sexual favour, she being unable to tolerate went to lodge a complaint. The conduct of the victim appears to be natural and not as is argued by the appellant's counsel that there is delay in filing the complaint and she intended to marry the accused and when he refused, a complaint was filed. But, as expressed by the Apex Court though the victim is 18 years old and she was capable of giving consent, even the medical evidence produced by the prosecution that the incident must have taken place three months prior to the filing of the complaint, there is no such consent by the victim to cooperate with the accused for sexual intercourse. Categorically the victim has stated that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse on her under the threat of a knife. Even the Apex Court has opined that courts must remain alive to the fact in the case of rape that no self respect woman would come forward in a court to make a humiliating statement against her honour. Looking into the nature of evidence and the manner in which the incident has taken place, accused though being a relative of the victim exceeded in his limits in harassing the victim and also when the victim intended to give a complaint, he has threatened her. Of course, defense taken by the accused is, when he refused to marry her such a complaint came to be filed. Of course, defense taken by the accused is, when he refused to marry her such a complaint came to be filed. The same cannot be accepted since the subsequent conduct of the accused shows that he was behind the victim and as and when he found occasion, he tried for forcible sexual intercourse and thereby committed the act of rape against the victim. Though the complainant is major as on the date of incident and there is delay in lodging the complaint, there is nothing suggestive of the fact in the evidence that she volunteered for sexual intercourse rather the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 is to the effect that accused abused and tried to assault the victim stating that she would file a complaint to the police. This fact itself shows that the victim cannot be a consenting party and even the delay in filing the complaint might be because of the fact of being apprehensive of the accused that he would attempt on her or otherwise finish her of. Thus, the prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt that he attempted on the victim and committed rape at knife point. Rightly the trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him. The decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused with regard to delay and on other aspects do not favour the accused. 21. Appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. However, the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years is reduced to seven years with fine as ordered and default sentence of three months simple imprisonment for the offence under S. 376, IPC. The accused is said to be in custody since more than eighteen months. However, he is entitled to set of as per S. 428, Cr.P.C. and he has to serve the remaining sentence. Further, the amount of compensation to be paid by the accused remains unaltered.