JUDGMENT A.I.S. CHEEMA, J. : 1. This Appeal is by original accused (hereafter referred as “accused”) who was convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) by Sessions Judge, Jalna in Crime No.51 of 1997 of Hasnabad Police Station and who was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/and in default of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. When the Appeal was filed, notice of enhancement of sentence was issued to the Appellant accused keeping in view provisions of Section 376 of I.P.C. The notice has been registered as Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 2001. Thus this matter has come up for hearing. 3. Case of prosecution in brief, is as under:. Complainant (hereafter referred as “prosecutrix”) was residing at Rajur, District Jalna along with her husband and inlaws. On 5th October, 1997 she had gone to graze her goat in the field of one Sanduji Gangwan. She drank water from a public well at some distance from the field. At that time the accused had come to that well. After prosecutrix had water and went back to the field which had hybrid jawar as the crop, at about 1.15 p.m. the accused went to the prosecutrix from behind. At that time she was picking up grass. The accused went from her behind and suddenly pressed her mouth and he put her down and brandished a knife and told her that if she shouts, he will stab the knife in her stomach. As such she could not shout. She was forced to lie on the ground and the accused then committed intercourse with her. The accused then threatened her that she should not tell the incident to anybody. The prosecutrix sat there for sometime and around 2.00 – 2.30 p.m. took her goat and went home. Out of fear she did not tell the incident to anybody at home. However, thinking that the accused may repeat the act, on 8th October, 1997 she told the act to her brother, husband and parentsinlaw. Thereafter the complaint came to be filed and the offence was registered. The matter was investigated by then P.S.I. Champalal Shevgan. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Spot Panchnama was drawn. Clothes of the prosecutrix were seized. The clothes of accused were also seized. Thereafter the complaint came to be filed and the offence was registered. The matter was investigated by then P.S.I. Champalal Shevgan. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Spot Panchnama was drawn. Clothes of the prosecutrix were seized. The clothes of accused were also seized. The knife was seized at the instance of the accused. The articles seized were sent for chemical analysis. Statements of witnesses were also recorded in the investigation. Ultimately the chargesheet came to be filed before J.M.F.C. Bhokardan. The offence being Sessions triable, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions at Jalna. 4. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 376 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of denial and false implication. 5. In the course of trial, the Spot Panchnama (Exhibit 17), Panchnama of seizure of clothes of prosecutrix (Exhibit 18), the arrest and seizure of clothes of accused – Panchnama (Exhibit 19), C.A. Reports Exhibit 20 to 22 were admitted, by the counsel for accused and were accordingly exhibited. Prosecution brought on record oral evidence of four witnesses and further documents. The accused, as mentioned, took the defence of denial and claimed that on 8th October, 1997 when F.I.R. in the present matter was registered, earlier than that, he had filed complaint against husband of prosecutrix and others and thus he had been falsely implicated. 6. The Sessions Judge, after hearing the matter, convicted the accused as mentioned above and thus the present Appeal. 7. Grounds taken in the Appeal and the arguments raised on behalf of the Appellant accused are that the prosecution failed to prove the offence and on surmises, conviction has been imposed. There was delay in filing of the F.I.R. and the delay was not explained. The prosecutrix did not disclose the incident for 3 days and thus should not have been relied on. The evidence shows that even after the incident, the prosecutrix followed her routine and thus her allegation against the accused is not reliable. Recovery of knife was not proved. Although prosecutrix claimed that buttons of her blouse broke and that her bangles broke at the time of incident, from the spot no such pieces of bangles were seized. The Appellant accused had filed case against the husband and other relatives of the prosecutrix and thus false case has been filed against the Appellant accused. Although prosecutrix claimed that buttons of her blouse broke and that her bangles broke at the time of incident, from the spot no such pieces of bangles were seized. The Appellant accused had filed case against the husband and other relatives of the prosecutrix and thus false case has been filed against the Appellant accused. The counsel for Appellant accused submitted that the accused filed F.I.R. at 11.05 a.m. and then on the same day the F.I.R. of prosecutrix was registered at 3.00 p.m. Although on the spot it was found that the place was trampled, but pieces of bangles and button were not found. 8. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the complainant was married lady and she had her own fears regarding disclosure of incident to her husband and others and it is not likely that she would falsely implicate. Before the incident there was no quarrel between the family of the prosecutrix and the accused, and there was no reason for the prosecutrix to make such serious allegations. The accused in the course of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. himself filed certified copy of chargesheet in R.C.C. No.108 of 1997 which document itself shows that on 8th October 1997, in the morning the husband of prosecutrix and others picked up a quarrel with the accused because he had teased the prosecutrix. It was submitted that the trial Court had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the prosecutrix and made observations that the prosecutrix was reliable and minor contradictions and omissions were thus ignored. According to the learned A.P.P. after having found the accused guilty for offence under Section 376 of I.P.C., the trial Court could not have sentenced the accused only for four years of rigorous imprisonment in the absence of adequate and special reasons, keeping in view the Proviso below Section 376 of I.P.C., as it was then applicable. . Learned counsel for Appellant accused fairly accepted that if the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. was to be maintained, the punishment could not be less than seven years as the trial Court merely mentioned that the Appellant accused was 25 years old to impose lesser sentence, which reason was no reason. 9. Having heard counsel for both sides, we have examined the oral and documentary evidence available. 9. Having heard counsel for both sides, we have examined the oral and documentary evidence available. There is evidence of PW3, the prosecutrix available on record, which shows that on the day of incident she had gone to graze her goat. In the field concerned, there was crop of Jawar. She has deposed that the accused had came there and held her on the point of knife and made her to lie down and committed rape on her. She deposed that accused had intercourse with her. It is her evidence that accused threatened that he will stab her by knife, at the time of incident. She has also deposed that the accused threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody. Her evidence is that after such incident, after sometime she went home and did not disclose the fact to anybody. On third day of incident, she disclosed the fact to her mother-in-law and to her husband. Thereafter the complaint came to be filed. In the cross-examination, she deposed that immediately after the incident she had returned to her house and did not sit at the spot for couple of hours. Her evidence is that at the spot concerned, there was no rough surface but black soil was there. She explained in the cross-examination that she did not resist as accused committed rape on her giving threat of stabbing her. She volunteered that in the incident, two of her bangles broke and buttons of her blouse also got torn and the blouse was also torn. Her cross-examination further reveals that on the next day of incident, she did not go to graze the goat. She admitted that between the time of incident and filing of report, she was carrying on her routine work and admitted that she was physically alright on the next day. 10. It is clear from the record that the prosecutrix is rustic woman from small village. Trial Judge in Para 22 of the Judgment, observed that he had observed the demeanour of the witness who is studied upto 4th standard and that she is a typical rural woman. From the manner in which she gave the evidence, the trial Judge observed that what she was stating before the Court was truth. Thus, the trial Judge found the prosecutrix reliable witness. 11. From the manner in which she gave the evidence, the trial Judge observed that what she was stating before the Court was truth. Thus, the trial Judge found the prosecutrix reliable witness. 11. There is evidence of PW1 Dilip Sakharam Manohar, who was the husband of the prosecutrix and PW2 Dwarkabai Sakharam Manohar, the mother-in-law. The evidence of these witnesses corroborates the evidence of prosecutrix that three days after the incident, the prosecutrix had told them about the same. Evidence of PW1 Dilip shows that on the concerned day of incident after returning back from the field, his wife went to bed and he asked as to why she has gone to bed but she did not say anything. In the cross-examination, he accepted that for next 23 days his wife was doing regular work. Even PW2 Dwarkabai, to whom prosecutrix told the incident, stated in cross-examination that since day of incident till the same was disclosed, the daughter-in-law was carrying on usual work. Learned counsel for the Appellant accused referring to such evidence, has argued that it shows that even after the incident the prosecutrix was carrying on her normal routine work and thus it cannot be said that the incident had impact on prosecutrix and so the delay, according to him, is not properly explained. We find that there is no substance in this argument. The prosecutrix was rustic woman who had faced traumatic incident. There would be a natural tendency to hide the incident for various reasons and try to follow normal routine. In the matter of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases 217, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix could be relied on. It was observed that the approach in the western world is different. However, with reference to our Country, it was observed in Para 10 as under:“ 10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban so also rural society. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban so also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition::: bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross-examination by counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.” 12. For above reasons, uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix also can be relied on irrespective of the arguments that she kept quiet for 23 days after the incident and tried to follow normal routine. The fact that the accused filed a complaint against the husband of prosecutrix and others, rather lends credence to the prosecutrix as the copy of chargesheet in R.C.C. No.108 of 1997, filed in the record shows that on 8th October 1997 in the morning PW1 Dilip and others picked up quarrel with the accused as to the reason why he had teased the prosecutrix. No doubt the accused while filing that complaint, may have limited the cause of quarrel to teasing, but what appears is that due to the present incident, that quarrel took place when prosecutrix disclosed the incident to her husband. The trial Court has rightly relied on this factor in support of prosecution to hold that the offence is established. 13. The evidence of the prosecutrix and cross examination shows that on the next day of incident she had washed her clothes. As the complaint was delayed, naturally corroborative evidence from clothes of the prosecutrix or accused could not become available and due to lapse of time, the spot may have also been disturbed. However, considering the evidence available on record, we do not find that any interference is called for with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. 14. The counsel for Appellant-accused relied on the case of (i) Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo alias Sudhansu Kumar Sahoo vs. State, 2000(3) Crimes 355 , (ii) Jagannath Benta vs. State, 2001 CRI. L.J. 282, to argue that delay in such matter will give rise to doubt. However, keeping in view the Judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, cited supra, and the evidence available on record, we are in agreement with the trial Court that the offence is proved. 15. Subsection 1 of Section 376 of I.P.C. as it stood before amendment (at the time concerned) read as under: “376. However, keeping in view the Judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, cited supra, and the evidence available on record, we are in agreement with the trial Court that the offence is proved. 15. Subsection 1 of Section 376 of I.P.C. as it stood before amendment (at the time concerned) read as under: “376. Punishment for rape.(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by subsection (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten yeas and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.” 16. The Proviso clearly shows that for adequate and special reasons, the sentence could be less than seven years. In present matter, having regard to the inadequate reasons mentioned in the Judgment for awarding lesser punishment, this Court issued suomotu notice to the Appellant to show cause as to why the quantum of sentence should not be enhanced. This was registered as SuoMotu Criminal Revision Application No.1 of 2001. We heard the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as learned A.P.P. on this point at length. We do not agree with the reasons mentioned in the Judgment that since the Appellant is only 25 years old, he should be shown leniency. We hold that the term of imprisonment awarded to the Appellant should not be less than seven years and we are inclined to enhance the same to seven years. 17. For the above reasons, we pass following order: ORDER (A) The Appeal of the Appellant accused is rejected. (B) The conviction imposed on Appellant accused under Section 376 of I.P.C. is maintained. (C) In view of notice for enhancement of the sentence, the sentence imposed by the trial Court of rigorous imprisonment for four years is substituted. 17. For the above reasons, we pass following order: ORDER (A) The Appeal of the Appellant accused is rejected. (B) The conviction imposed on Appellant accused under Section 376 of I.P.C. is maintained. (C) In view of notice for enhancement of the sentence, the sentence imposed by the trial Court of rigorous imprisonment for four years is substituted. Instead, it is directed that for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. the Appellant accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and shall pay fine of Rs.1000/(Rupees One Thousand), and in default of fine he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. (D) The bail bonds of the Appellant accused are cancelled. He shall undergo sentence as imposed. Set off as admissible shall be given. The Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision Application are accordingly disposed of.