JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J.?The appellant from inside the jail has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 100/99 (T.C. No. 40/99) convicting him for offence under section 376(I), I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Prosecution case is that on 16.03.1999 the victim was suffering from fever and she in the absence of her husband at home went to the Anganbadi centre of their village where medicines were being distributed. The victim did not find the lady Anganbadi worker in-charge of that centre but her husband, the appellant, was found to be there. When the victim asked for medicines, the appellant called her inside and gave the medicines with instruction about its intake. It is stated that at that time she caught hold the hands of the victim, dragged her and then closed the door of the room from inside. The victim was then carrying her baby who being snatched away by the appellant was made to sit on the floor. It is stated that thereafter the appellant committed sexual intercourse upon the victim forcibly. The victim after the incident on Thursday came crying to her house and when her husband came on Saturday, she narrated the incident before him who in turn reported the matter to co-villagers and then as per the instruction further reported the matter to Sarpanch. A village meeting was then convened by the Sarpanch and several villagers gathered. The appellant being called remained present. There the victim narrated the incident and the appellant denied such allegations. The victim and her husband being annoyed, assaulted the respondent. Thereafter report in writing was made to the police by the husband of the victim. The said report was treated as F.I.R. and it was written by one Ghanashyam Paleya under the instruction of the husband of the victim. On the basis of the said information, case being registered, investigation commenced. In course of investigation, the victim, her husband and other witnesses were examined. The respondent was apprehended. The victim as well the appellant were medically examined and upon seizure of their wearing apparels, those were sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet being submitted the appellant faced the trial. 2. The defence plea is one of complete denial. In course of investigation, the victim, her husband and other witnesses were examined. The respondent was apprehended. The victim as well the appellant were medically examined and upon seizure of their wearing apparels, those were sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet being submitted the appellant faced the trial. 2. The defence plea is one of complete denial. In the statement the appellant has stated that as he declined to give illegal subscription as per the demand of the villagers, this case has been foisted against him. During trial from the side of the prosecution thirteen witnesses have been examined whereas the defence has examined none. Besides the oral evidence the prosecution has proved the F.I.R. as Ext.1, medical examination reports as Exts.2 and 6 and the report of the chemical examiner as Ext.10. It may be mentioned that the victim has been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.1 is her husband. P.Ws.2, 3 and 7 are other witnesses. The doctors have been examined as P.Ws.9 and 11. The Investigating Officers are P.Ws.12 and 13. 3. The trial court on examination of evidence and upon their evaluation has found the appellant guilty for commission of offence under section 376, I.P.C. and accordingly he has been convicted and sentenced. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the solitary testimony of P.W.2, the victim, ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court. According to her, P.W.2's evidence is wholly unreliable and unsafe to fasten the criminal liability upon the respondent for the offence of rape. She further submits that the evidence of P.W.2 when read in its entirety with definiteness leads to show that she was having the consent and was a party to the said sexual activity voluntarily. It is also her submission that the appreciation of evidence as done by the trial court is not just and proper and, therefore, the finding based upon the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the finding leading to the conviction of the appellant is a well merited one and there remains no reason as to why the evidence of P.W.2 would not be accepted. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the finding leading to the conviction of the appellant is a well merited one and there remains no reason as to why the evidence of P.W.2 would not be accepted. According to him, she has stated in a natural manner and her conduct that she disclosed the incident immediately on arrival of her husband and then in the meeting rather negates a case of consent when it is considered with her back ground and starta. Therefore, he contends that the trial court did commit no mistake in convicting the appellant for the above offences. 6. Keeping the above submission in mind, this Court is now called upon to examine the evidence on record in order to judge the defensibility of the finding rendered by the trial court. When the evidence of the victim (P.W.2) is seen, it is found that she has stated to have gone to the house of the appellant on that day with her child and at that time the wife of the appellant was absent. She has stated her purpose of visit was to bring medicine for her ailment. It is also in the evidence that her husband was not present in the house then and had been to Salaibeda, and he came on Saturday afternoon. She has specifically stated that on arrival the respondent snatched away her child and by closing the door committed rape upon her forcibly. In a natural manner, she has stated to have disclosed the incident to her husband on his arrival and then both to have gone to the Sarpanch as per the advice of the Ward Member. It is also her evidence that there was a meeting in the village where the appellant though remained present did not confess and after that only, the F.I.R. was lodged. Thus, here the victim herself explains the delay and that in the facts and circumstances of the case is found to be quite acceptable. It is expected from a rustic rural woman with child in the absence of her husband being raped in such mental condition at that moment would remain in a fix and completely disturbed thinking what to do and what not. So for her to maintain silence is just but natural. It further appears that on arrival of her husband, the matter got triggered. So for her to maintain silence is just but natural. It further appears that on arrival of her husband, the matter got triggered. In cross-examination she has further stated that at that point of time, nobody was there in the house of the appellant. When she has stated that they assaulted the appellants, she meant that it was in the meeting and that has found support from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.9), who noticed during examination of the appellant on 30.03.1999 as against the incident taking place on 19.03.1999 that there were two old healed wounds on the top of the scars and another in the right ear lobule. The evidence of this doctor is to the effect that the age of the injury was more than seven days. This exposes the truthfulness of evidence of P.W.2. The victim's evidence with regard to the forcible sexual intercourse upon her by the appellant has not in any way been shaken. No such other circumstance also emanates from her evidence so as to infer even for a moment that the probability factor is out of tune. Therefore, the victim is found to be a witness of sterling quality and her solitary testimony in this case is found to be truthful and there exists nothing to cast any doubt on her veracity. Moreover, there strikes no reason as to why this rustic woman belonging to scheduled tribe community hailing from rural area would go to implicate this appellant stating on oath that she was raped by him at the risk of her marital life, earning social stigma and at the cost of her own dignity. If it was with consent, when nobody had seen it or even doubted about the relationship either prior to that date or on that date, there was no reason for this victim to disclose on her own. Over and above, it is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that the husband of P.W.2 that he came to know from her that when she had been to the centre, the appellant called her into the room and as soon as she entered, she was asked to keep the baby on a place and then was raped. It is also stated that he was told by P.W.2 that at that time the wife of the appellant was absent in the house. It is also stated that he was told by P.W.2 that at that time the wife of the appellant was absent in the house. Follow up actions taken at his instance as has further been deposed to. It has further been deposed by P.W.4, the Ward Member that P.W.1 had complained before him about the incident implicating the appellant and for that there was a meeting in the village. As regards that meeting, it has also been stated by P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.6 again run on the line that he was informed by P.W.1 about the rape being committed upon her wife by the appellant and he being the Sarpanch had called the meeting, where P.W.2 described the details of the happenings. The same is the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. Though a plea has been taken by the appellant that the case has been falsely foisted as he did not pay the subscription surrendering to the illegal demand of the villagers, no such evidence has either been let in by the appellant nor any such material has surfaced in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses giving any indication in that direction. Therefore, on independent evaluation of evidence, this Court find that the prosecution has established the charge of rape against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 7. For the aforesaid discussion and reason, I do not find any such justification to arrive at a conclusion other than that of the trial court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed which is the prescribed minimum are hereby confirmed. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is directed to forthwith surrender to custody for serving out the remaining sentence. The trial court is also directed to take necessary steps as per law in that regard. Final Result : Dismissed