Judgment Joymalya Bagchi, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in Sessions Trial No. 8/2011 (Sessions Case No. 197/2009) convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 21.04.2007 at about 7.30-8.00 pm the appellant entered into the house of the victim, namely, Sahera Begum (PW 1) in the absence of her husband and after having caught hold of the victim ravished her against her will. On the basis of written complaint of the victim Sahera Begum (PW 1), Hemtabad P.S. Case No. 30/2007 dated 21.04.2007 under section 376/448 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet under section 448/337 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It was suggested that the husband of the victim had been charged with committing theft in the pond of the appellant and consequentially the appellant had been falsely implicated in the instant case. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by judgment and order dated 29.08.2013 convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 376/448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month more for the offence punishable under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW 1) suffers from inherent contradictions and/or inconsistencies. Her deposition in Court is at variance to the first information report. In the first information report she stated that she had remained quiet about the incident till her husband came while in deposition she stated that she raised hue and cry as a result her relations and the neighbours had come to the place of occurrence and had caught the appellant. Drawing my attention to cross-examination of PW 1 it was argued that her statement before the Magistrate was a tutored one. Mr. Dasgupta also criticized the evidence of daughter of the victim, namely Sahanwaj Khatun (PW 4) submitting that she did not see the incident and it was absurd that the incident of rape occurred while the PW 1 with her three children were sleeping in the same room. He submitted that the evidence of PW 4 to the effect that they had come out of the room after opening the door after the incident improbabilised the allegation of rape. It was his submission that the evidence of PW 2 and 3 that they saw the appellant leaving the room of the victim and chased him is improbabilized by the evidence of PW 4. He submitted that PW 9 doctor did not support the allegation of forcible rape. It was his submission that the prosecution witnesses have embellished their versions during trial and accordingly they ought not to be believed. He submitted that lantern and knife were not seized. Seizure of chappals of the appellant was doubtful. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant. Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of the victim PW 1 is consistent with the allegations in the first information report relating to the act of rape. Minor variations cannot be amplified to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. Seizure of chappals of the appellant was doubtful. He prayed for acquittal of the appellant. Mr. Banerjee, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of the victim PW 1 is consistent with the allegations in the first information report relating to the act of rape. Minor variations cannot be amplified to disbelieve the entire prosecution case. Evidence of PW 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are consistent and all of them unequivocally deposed that immediately after the incident the victim narrated the incident to them and disclosed that the appellant was the culprit. No enmity between the appellant and the family of the victim has been established. The victim was threatened and overpowered by the appellant at the time of rape and therefore evidence of PW 9 doctor cannot be said to be inconsistent with the prosecution case. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal. PW 1 (Sahera Begum) is the prosecutrix in the instant case. She stated that on the fateful day, that is, on 21.04.2007 around 7.30-8.00 PM she was sleeping in the room with her children. Her husband was not in the house. He had gone to the market. The appellant came and enquired of her husband. She stated that her husband was not at home. The appellant entered the room and caught hold of her and laid her on the ground and raped her. She raised hue and cry and her daughter woke up. Her brothers-in-laws and other neighbouring people came and caught the appellant after a chase. The appellant left behind his chappals when he tried to flee away. She stated that her husband is no longer alive. She went to Hemtabad P.S. and lodged complaint. The complaint was scribed by Mabud (PW 8). She stated that she was medically examined. She also made a statement before the Magistrate who recorded her statement and she put her LTI thereon. In cross-examination, she stated that there was only one bed room in the house. Sahanawaj Khatun (PW 4) is her eldest daughter, Rajina is her younger daughter and Raju is her son. All of them were asleep at the relevant time in the bed room. There is a single door in the bedroom. She stated that the villagers and brothers of her husband came to the police station and stated that Mansur will not be spared. All of them were asleep at the relevant time in the bed room. There is a single door in the bedroom. She stated that the villagers and brothers of her husband came to the police station and stated that Mansur will not be spared. They advised her as to what would be narrated to the learned Magistrate. She denied the suggestion that her husband committed theft in the pond and the appellant detected him and for such reason he has been falsely implicated. PW 2 (Habibur Rahaman), PW 3 (Najrul Islam) and PW 6 (Sajjad Ali) are the brothers-in-laws of the victim. They stated that on hearing hue and cry they rushed to the house of the victim (PW 1). They found that she was crying and told them that the appellant had raped her. They chased the appellant but he had fled away leaving his chappals behind at the house of the victim. Next day, the victim deposited the chappals at the police station. Said chappals were seized under a seizure list. PW 2 and 3 signed the said seizure list. PW 4 (Sahanawaj Khatun) is the daughter of the victim PW 1. She stated that she was sleeping with her mother in the room. The appellant entered the room and raped her mother. She was sleeping at that time. On hearing hue and cry she woke up. He uncles came. They chased the appellant but he run away leaving his chappals behind. Her mother told her that she had been raped by the appellant. In cross-examination, she stated that there is only one room in the house where all of them sleep. When she woke up she found her mother crying. Then her mother narrated the incident to her. Her uncles came to the spot within 5-10 minutes of raising alarm. They came out of the house after opening the door. Chappall was found in the courtyard. The houses of her uncles are situated near her house. PW 5 (Tanjena Begum) is the sister-in-law of the victim and wife of PW 3. She has corroborated the evidence of PW 2, 3 and 6. PW 7 (Jaya Barman) is the constable who escorted the victim to Raiganj Hospital. She collected the vaginal swab from the hospital. PW 8 (Mabud Baks) is the scribe of the first information report. PW 5 (Tanjena Begum) is the sister-in-law of the victim and wife of PW 3. She has corroborated the evidence of PW 2, 3 and 6. PW 7 (Jaya Barman) is the constable who escorted the victim to Raiganj Hospital. She collected the vaginal swab from the hospital. PW 8 (Mabud Baks) is the scribe of the first information report. He stated that he wrote the complaint as per the dictation of the victim. He proved the complaint as Exhibit 3 and proved his signature thereby Exhibit 3/1. PW 9 (Dr. Tushar Kanti Bhattacharjee) was a gynaecologist posted at Raiganj District Hospital. He stated that on examination he did not find sign of forcible sexual intercourse. The victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. No injury was seen on the private parts of the victim. He has proved his report as Exhibit 2/1. PW 10 (Ratna Das Thakur) escorted the victim Sahera Begum to Raiganj Court for recording her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. PW 11 (Arabinda Chakraborty) examined the vaginal swab of the victim. PW 12 (Dr. Kalisankar Bhattacharjee) examined the appellant and stated that he was capable of sexual intercourse. PW 13 (Dr. Pradip Kr. Bhattacharjee) performed ossification test of the victim and opined that she was more than 20 years. He proved his report as Exhibit 6. PW 14 (S.K. Mukherjee) is the Investigating Officer of the instant case. He stated that the Officer-in-Charge Hemtabad police station received the written complaint from PW 1 and drew up the formal FIR marked as Exhibit 7. Investigation was entrusted to him. He visited the PO and prepared a rough sketch map. He seized chappals from the PO under a seizure list and he examined witnesses and recorded their statement. He arranged for medical examination of the victim. He collected her medical report. He arranged for recording of statement of the victim under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He collected the report. On 01.05.2007 he arrested the appellant from his residence. He arranged for medical examination of the appellant. He submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination, he stated that no knife was seized from the house of the victim. Police remand of the appellant was not sought for. He did not enquire whether the seized chappals were of a lady or a gentleman. On 01.05.2007 he arrested the appellant from his residence. He arranged for medical examination of the appellant. He submitted charge sheet. In cross-examination, he stated that no knife was seized from the house of the victim. Police remand of the appellant was not sought for. He did not enquire whether the seized chappals were of a lady or a gentleman. He did not make investigation to ascertain whether seized chappals were used by the appellant. I have examined the evidence of the victim PW 1. The victim has deposed that on 21.04.2007 she was sleeping in the room of her house with her three children. He husband had gone to the market at that time. Appellant had come to the house and enquired of the husband of the victim. Victim stated that her husband was not in the house. Appellant entered the house and laid the victim on the ground and committed rape on her. She raised alarm and consequentially one of her children Sahanawaj Khatun (PW 4) woke up. Hearing her alarm her brothers-in-laws (PW 2, 3 and 6) also came to the place of occurrence. She narrated the incident to her daughter PW 4 as well as her brothers-in-laws PW 2, 3 and 6 respectively. She also narrated the incident to her sister-in-law, PW 5. Her evidence has been criticized on the ground that in the first information report she did not state that she raised hue and cry immediately after the incident but remained quiet till her husband came. Thereafter she narrated the incident to the villagers. I am of the opinion that the narration of the incident by PW 1 in Court and that in the first information report is substantially consistent. The gist of her allegation that the appellant had come to the house enquiring of her husband and in spite of being informed that her husband was absent had entered the house and pulled her down on the ground and raped her is consistently depicted both in her deposition in Court as well as in the first information report. In her deposition in Court she had, in fact, described the incident in more details. She narrated that she raised hue and cry after the incident and as a result her brothers-in-laws, namely PW 2, 3 and 6 and her sister-in-law, PW 5 came to her home when she narrated the incident to them. In her deposition in Court she had, in fact, described the incident in more details. She narrated that she raised hue and cry after the incident and as a result her brothers-in-laws, namely PW 2, 3 and 6 and her sister-in-law, PW 5 came to her home when she narrated the incident to them. Her version in the FIR that she kept silent till her husband came and then narrated the incident to villagers does not militate against her deposition in Court inasmuch as in Court. She claimed to have narrated the incident to her daughter and in-laws prior to the arrival of her husband and not to other villagers. It is trite law that first information report is not an encyclopedia of all events. Narration of the incident by PW 1 to her near relations who came to her home immediately after the incident is a most natural conduct on the part of the victim and merely because she did not mention it in the first information report the same cannot be disbelieved. The evidence of these witnesses (i.e. PW 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) corroborated the version of PW 1 as to rape committed by the appellant on her. The victim narrated such fact shortly after the incident to the said witnesses. Relationship of the witnesses with the victim render it most probable that she would ordinarily confide such incident to them as they were near and dear ones of the victim. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has criticized the evidence of PW 1 as she claimed that she was tutored by her brothers-in-laws before recording her statement before the Magistrate. He further submitted that the deposition of PW 4 that after the incident her mother opened the door and they came out of the room improbables the incident as it would appear the room was closed from inside. In the instant case the victim had immediately after the incident narrated the factum of rape by the appellant to her daughter (PW 4) and her near relations (PW 2, 3, 5 and 6) immediately after the incident. Thereafter she went to the police station and lodged the FIR about the incident. It is nobody’s case that the written complaint lodged by PW 1 was a product of tutoring. Thereafter she went to the police station and lodged the FIR about the incident. It is nobody’s case that the written complaint lodged by PW 1 was a product of tutoring. On the other hand, the first information report was promptly lodged after the incident narrating the incident of rape by the appellant. Accordingly I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution case ought to be disbelieved on the ground that PW 1 was a tutored witness. It is the evidence of PW 4 that she had woken up after the incident and found her mother crying. He mother narrated that she had been raped by the appellant. Shortly thereafter her uncles arrived and they came out of the room after opening the door. Relying on the aforesaid evidence learned counsel for the appellant argued that the door was bolted from inside. I do not find any such evidence on record. PW 4 was not eyewitness of the incident as she was asleep. When she woke up her mother narrated the incident and upon her uncles arriving at the spot they came out of the room by opening the door. Such evidence cannot be interpretated to mean that the room was bolted from inside. On the other hand, it means that they had come out of the room by pushing the leaves of the door open and not unlocking it. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW 4 improbabilises the allegation of rape of the victim. It is however true that PW 4 claimed that her uncles came to the spot within 10-15 minutes from her mother raising alarm. Thereafter they had come out of the room. Such version of PW 4, if believed to be true, would make it highly unlikely that PW 2, 3 5 and 6 could have seen the appellant running away and attempted to catch him. Such portion in the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses appear to be an exaggeration embellishment and is liable to be discarded. However the portion of their evidence that shortly after the incident they arrived at the place of occurrence and the victim had narrated the incident of rape to them being consistent and most natural cannot be disregarded on such score. However the portion of their evidence that shortly after the incident they arrived at the place of occurrence and the victim had narrated the incident of rape to them being consistent and most natural cannot be disregarded on such score. It is well established in Indian Courts that “falsus in uno” is not “falsus in omnibus”. While appreciating the evidence of a witness it is incumbent on the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. Hence I rely on the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses to the exhibits they deposed that they arrived at the place of occurrence shortly after the incident and were appraised of the same by the victim herself. I am also unable to accept the argument that the version of PW 1 ought to be disbelieved in the light of the evidence of PW 9 doctor (Tushar Kanti Bhattacharjee). PW 1 stated that she was overpowered and laid down to the ground and raped against her will. It is trite law that passive yet involuntarily submission of the victim upon being overpowered by the rapist would not be construed as consent on her part. As the victim had been overpowered and laid down by the appellant it is likely that she was unable to actively fight back and resist her assailant. Hence no injuries were found in her private parts. Accordingly mere absence of injury in her private parts does not militate against the version of PW 1 that she was overpowered by the appellant who pulled her down and committed rape on her. Non-seizure of lantern is also of no consequence as lanterns are ordinarily available in every village home. Finally, the defence version of enmity between the appellant and the husband of the victim has not been established at all. Suggestion that the husband of the appellant was caught committing theft of fishes in the pond of the appellant has not been established. Suggestion to that effect has been soundly denied. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence of any enmity between the appellant and the family of PW 1 so as to justify false implication of the appellant in the instant case. On the contrary, it is unlikely the victim would spare the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant in the absence of an enmity between themselves. On the contrary, it is unlikely the victim would spare the real culprit and falsely implicate the appellant in the absence of an enmity between themselves. Moreover, the conduct of the victim in narrating the incident of rape to her near relations immediately after the incident and promptly lodging of the first information report establishes the credibility of the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant. The appeal is dismissed. Period of detention undergone by the appellant during investigation/inquiry/trial shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C., 1973. Lower court records along with a copy of the judgment be sent down to the trial Court at once.