Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 899 (HP)

Gulshan Kumar Rana v. State Of H. P.

2014-07-14

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 30.09.2008, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2007, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, to, suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment, for, a period of three months, for the commission of offence u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. The brief facts, of the case, are that the prosecutrix, PW-3 was aged about 17 years. She was studying in Government Senior Secondary School, Kunsal, located at a distance of 7-9 kilometers from her house. On 1.6.2007, after the school hours, she was proceeding home from school. The prosecutrix commuted the distance, from Kunsal to Maha-Kaal on foot. She boarded a private bus, at, Maha-Kaal, for Mudh. The accused also boarded the bus at Maha-Kaal. PW-3, the prosecutrix alighted the bus at Mudh. She had to cover the distance from Mudh to her home on foot. The accused, too, alighted at Mudh. The accused asked PW-3, the prosecutrix, if she was proceeding to her house. The prosecutrix on sensing that the accused did not have good intention, informed him, that, she was going to the house of the sister of her mother, in, a different village. The accused left on foot towards village Gawal, though, the accused had been putting up in village Dadeen, which village, is, close to village Gawal. On departure of the accused to village Gawal, the prosecutrix left for her house through a different path passing, through, the forest. The accused was keeping a watch over the movement of PW-3. The accused reached the area of Thathru forest, ahead of PW-3. However, when the prosecutrix reached the Thathru forest area at about 2.45 p.m., the accused intercepted her. The prosecutrix was forcibly taken behind the bushes in the forest. PW-3, the prosecutrix, cried for help. However, none responded to the cries of PW-3, as, the area was thick forest. PW-3 resisted the advances of the accused. The accused is alleged to have committed forcible sexual intercourse twice with the prosecutrix, PW-3, without her consent and will. After committing the crime, the accused left for his destination. PW-3, the prosecutrix, cried for help. However, none responded to the cries of PW-3, as, the area was thick forest. PW-3 resisted the advances of the accused. The accused is alleged to have committed forcible sexual intercourse twice with the prosecutrix, PW-3, without her consent and will. After committing the crime, the accused left for his destination. PW-3, had reached her house at 5.00 P.M. She had narrated the occurrence to PW-5, her mother and PW-5, then, informed her husband about the rape of her daughter, by the accused. The police was telephonically informed by the father of the prosecutrix. PW-15, Smt. Sureshtha Thakur, Sub Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Baijnath, had recorded rapat No. 17, in the daily diary in the Police Station. Copy whereof is Ex. PW14/B. She along with other police personnel rushed to village Gawal. 3. On completion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused was charged for his having committed an offence punishable u/s 376 of the IPC by the learned trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined many witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused. 6. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box to prove the prosecution case, is, Dr. D.D. Rana, Medical Officer, C.H. Baijnath. PW-1, proved, record Ex. PW1/B. The following injuries are divulged in Ex. PW1/B, to have been found on the person of the accused: 1. On the posterior part of the body there was abrasion on the right hand arm 7 cm in length, 2 cm in breadth, bluish discoloration. No fresh bleeding. 2. Abrasion on the right scapular region 4 cm in length 3 cm in breadth, slight pinkish in colour, side of the margins were bluish in colour, no fresh bleeding. 3. Abrasion on the lower back, just near the sacral region left side, 5 cm in length and 3 cm in breadth pinkish in colour, no fresh bleeding was present. 4. Abrasion on the right scapular region 4 cm in length 3 cm in breadth, slight pinkish in colour, side of the margins were bluish in colour, no fresh bleeding. 3. Abrasion on the lower back, just near the sacral region left side, 5 cm in length and 3 cm in breadth pinkish in colour, no fresh bleeding was present. 4. There was no other injury on the thigh region and sacrotal region. 7. He also deposed that in his opinion the accused was capable of performing sexual act. The injuries as divulged in Ex. PW1/B have been deposed by this witness to be simple in nature and caused within 24 to 36 hours with blunt weapon. He also deposed that the injuries could possibly be inflicted, if, a person runs through the thorny bushes. 8. PW-2, L.C. Sumna Devi, has deposed that on 1.6.2007, she was on duty, as, lady constable at Police Station, Baijnath and on the same day, SI/SHO of the police station aforesaid, directed her to take the prosecutrix for medical examination to Sub Divisional Hospital, Baijnath. She deposes that she had proceeded to take the prosecutrix for her medical examination under reference, comprised in Ex. PW 2/A of the SHO and on receiving the reference, the Medical Officer had examined the prosecutrix, who was accompanying her. On her examination, she deposes that the Medical officer had handed over the MLC in a sealed packet to her, which she further handed over to the SHO. 9. PW-3, the prosecutrix, has deposed that on 1.6.2007, after school hours, she on departing from school, commuted the distance upto Maha-Kaal on foot. She deposes that she was accompanied, by co-student Ms. Sapna up to Maha-Kaal and at Maha-Kaal, she, had boarded a private bus, at, 2.30 p.m. She had alighted the bus at Mudh. She deposes that the accused, whom she identified in the Court, had, also, alighted the bus at Mudh. She deposes that the accused asked her that if she was walking to her house in Village Gawal. However, in response, she told the accused that she intended to visit the sister of her mother in a different village. Nonetheless, she deposes that she did not leave for the house of the sister of her mother, rather, she left for her own house. She deposes that she had taken the route to the house passing, through, the forest. However, in response, she told the accused that she intended to visit the sister of her mother in a different village. Nonetheless, she deposes that she did not leave for the house of the sister of her mother, rather, she left for her own house. She deposes that she had taken the route to the house passing, through, the forest. However, she deposes that the accused, who had reached Thathru Forest area prior to her through, an, alternative path, confronted her at Thathru Forest. The accused is alleged to have caught hold her from her arms forcibly and had dragged her to some distance from the path and laid her on the ground and twice committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Though, she deposes that she had raised a hue and cry, yet, her cries were unheard, as she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, in, a thick forest. Her shirt (Ex. P3) and salwar (Ex. P2) having been deposed to have come to be torn, during the course of the accused having forcibly dragged her from the path, as also, during the course of her being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. She also deposed that the accused had asked her not to disclose the occurrence to anybody. She also deposes that the accused had also undertaken to marry her. After committing the sexual intercourse, the accused is testified to have managed to escape. She deposes that she on returning home, informed her mother about the occurrence and her mother, further informed her father and thereafter, the police were intimated. She concedes the factum of hers having made statement Ex. PW3/A, to the police. She deposes that she was taken for medical examination to Civil Hospital, Baijnath, where she singed MLC at point 'B' and her salwar, Ex. P-2, shirt, Ex. P-3 and dupata, Ex. P-5, were taken into possession by the medical officer, besides her undershirt Ex. P-4, was also taken into possession by the medical officer. Shirt, Ex. P-3 and salwar, Ex. P-2, have been recorded in the MLC of PW-3, to have been torn. During the course of her cross-examination, she has admitted the suggestion that from village Mudh to her village there are two paths. She has deposed that one path is through forest and another path is meant for general public and is out of the forest. P-2, have been recorded in the MLC of PW-3, to have been torn. During the course of her cross-examination, she has admitted the suggestion that from village Mudh to her village there are two paths. She has deposed that one path is through forest and another path is meant for general public and is out of the forest. She concedes to the fact that on the fateful day, she had left Mudh for home through the path passing through the forest. She deposes that she had remained at the site of occurrence for about one hour. She has testified that the accused, is, from adjoining village Dadeen. She deposes that she was forcibly dragged from the path and she had sustained injuries and abrasions, which she had disclosed to the medical officer, who had examined her. She has denied the suggestion, that, since the accused is knowing her, she willingly accompanied him through the passage to her house through the forest. 10. PW-4 Shri Bamdhir Singh, who is lecturer of English in Government Senior Secondary School Kunsal, deposes that on 1.6.2007, PW-3 (the prosecutrix) had attended school and had left the school after school hours. He further deposes, that, the prosecutrix was absent on 2.6.2007 and thereafter remained absent up to 6.6.2007. He has also proved on record Ex. PW4/A, which, is, abstract of the attendance register for the month of June, 2007 as maintained by him, which has been deposed to be correct, as per the original record. 11. PW-5, Smt. Pawna Devi deposes qua the fact of PW-3, the prosecutrix being her daughter. She has corroborated the testimony of PW-3 qua the incident as divulged to her by the former. During the course of her cross-examination, she, had denied the suggestion that her daughter was having relations, with the accused for quite some time and when she had come to know of her illicit relations with the accused, she, had managed to register a false case against the accused. 12. PW-6, C. Shakti Chand has deposed that the accused was interrogated by the police and he had made statement Ex. PW6/A. On 3.6.2007, the accused had taken the complainant party and had demarcated the site of occurrence as per the document Ex. PW6/B. He has also deposed that on 5.6.2007, the Medical Officer, C.H. Baijnath had handed over one sealed packet, Ex. PW6/A. On 3.6.2007, the accused had taken the complainant party and had demarcated the site of occurrence as per the document Ex. PW6/B. He has also deposed that on 5.6.2007, the Medical Officer, C.H. Baijnath had handed over one sealed packet, Ex. P-6 to him, which was deposited by him with the MHC on the same day. 13. PW-7 Subhash Chand, the driver of the private bus proved on record copy of time table and route permit, Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B respectively. 14. PW-8 Prakaram Singh, Head Teacher in Govt. Primary School, Gawal has deposed that on an application Ex. PW8/A being moved by the police, he had issued the document Ex. PW8/B from the records maintained by the office, pertaining to the age of the prosecutrix. 15. PW-9 Udho Ram, has deposed that he was Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Chobin, in the year, 2007. He has deposed that on an application, Ex. PW9/A, being moved by the police on 6.6.2007, he had prepared the abstract of Parivar Register Nakal, Ex. PW9/B, which is correct as per the original record. 16. PW-10 H.C. Suresh Kumar, had deposed that on 1.6.2007, on receipt of statement of the prosecutrix Ex. PW3/A, through, HHG Ashok Kumar, he had registered FIR Ex. PW10/A against the accused and sent the file to Smt. Shareshta Devi, SI/SHO, through, the same HHG. He had made his endorsement Ex. PW10/B, on statement Ex. PW3/A. He has further deposed that on 1.6.2007, L.C. Suman Devi had deposited with him one sealed packet and on 3.6.2007, PW-6 C. Shakti Chand had deposited with him another sealed packet Ex. P-6, which were entered by him in the relevant register. These sealed packets were sent by him to the chemical examiner through C. Pritam Chand on 7.6.2007 vide R.C. No. 54/21. He has denied the suggestion in his cross-examination, that the report was prepared by the SHO, in, the police station and false endorsement of the SHO had been made. 17. PW-11 Baldev Singh Rana has deposed, that, on 1.6.2007, Sh. Majnu Ram, father of the prosecutrix had telephonically informed him about the rape of his daughter having been committed by the accused on which he advised him to report the matter to the police. 18. 17. PW-11 Baldev Singh Rana has deposed, that, on 1.6.2007, Sh. Majnu Ram, father of the prosecutrix had telephonically informed him about the rape of his daughter having been committed by the accused on which he advised him to report the matter to the police. 18. PW-12 H.C. Sampuran Singh has deposed, that, Suresh Kumar had been working as MHC in the Police Station, Baijnath and he had proceeded on tour on 5th June, 2007. He has deposed that in his absence, he was holding the charge of MHC under the orders of the SHO. On 7.6.2007, he had sent two sealed packets of FIR No. 76/07 to Chemical Examiner through constable Pritam Singh No. 1124 vide R.C. No. 54/07. He has further deposed that two envelopes containing specimen impression of seal used in applying to the case property had also been separately sent by him to the Chemical Examiner through constable aforesaid. 19. PW-13 C. Pritam Singh, deposed that on 7.6.2007, PW-12 C. Sampuran Singh handed over to him two sealed parcels, as also, two envelopes containing specimen impression of the seal to him, for being deposited with the Chemical Examiner, Junga. He had deposited the same with the Chemical Examiner, Junga on 8.6.2007 vide R.C. No. 54/21 and handed over the receipt to PW-12 on 10.6.2007. 20. PW-14 Prem Singh, Dy. S.P. has deposed that he has taken up the investigation of the present case on 2.6.2007, under orders of the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, from SI/SHO Smt. Sureshta Thakur, as, she found the commission of offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, having been committed by the accused, yet, on a careful looking into the matter, he had found that no case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was made out against the accused. He had visited the spot on 2.6.2007 at the instance of the prosecutrix and arrested the accused on 2.6.2007 after apprising him of the grounds of arrest. He deposed that on 3.6.2007 the accused was interrogated and made disclosure statement Ex. PW6/A in his presence, as well, in presence of Shakti Chand and Majnu Ram in pursuance to which the accused led the policy party as also the witnesses to the site of the crime in the area of Thathur village and had demarcated the site vide memo Ex. PW6/A in his presence, as well, in presence of Shakti Chand and Majnu Ram in pursuance to which the accused led the policy party as also the witnesses to the site of the crime in the area of Thathur village and had demarcated the site vide memo Ex. PW6/B. He has further deposed that he had collected the abstract Ex. PW4/A of the attendance register on application Ex. PW4/B. He also deposed, that, on an application Ex. PW9/A being moved before the Registrar of Births and Deaths, he, had collected the abstract of birth certificate, Ex. PW9/B. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that on 2.6.2007, PW-3, the prosecutrix had taken him to the site of the crime. He has deposed that it had surfaced in the investigation that the prosecutrix after attending the school had returned therefrom, in, a bus. He has deposed that the house of the prosecutrix, is, at a considerable distance from the school. He has also deposed that the prosecutrix had been returning from the school from Maha-Kaal to Mudh only, in, bus. He has also denied the suggestion, that, the accused had not made any disclosure statement nor led the police party to the site of crime. He has also denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 21. PW-15 Smt. Sureshta Thakur, SHO has deposed that on 1.6.2007 at about 5.45 p.m., Sh. Majnu Ram had telephonically informed the police station about rape having been committed by the accused upon the person of his daughter, upon, which she had recorded the rapat No. 17, Ex. PW14/B, in the daily diary of the police station and thereafter proceeded to the spot along with other police personnel in the official vehicle. He had reached the village at about 6.30 p.m. and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, Ex. PW3/A u/s 154 of the Cr. P.C. and had routed this statement to the police station through HHG Ashok Kumar for registration of FIR as per her endorsement Ex. PW15/A. She has deposed on 1.6.2007, she had deputed PW-2, L.C. Suman for getting the prosecutrix medically examined as per her application Ex. PW2/A. She had prepared the rough sketch map Ex. PW15/B, as per the demarcation given by PW-3, the prosecutrix. She deposed that she recorded the statements of Sh. PW15/A. She has deposed on 1.6.2007, she had deputed PW-2, L.C. Suman for getting the prosecutrix medically examined as per her application Ex. PW2/A. She had prepared the rough sketch map Ex. PW15/B, as per the demarcation given by PW-3, the prosecutrix. She deposed that she recorded the statements of Sh. Majnu Ram, Pawna Devi and supplementary statement of the prosecutrix u/s 161 of the Cr. P.C. During the investigation of the case, she found the accused having committed the offences u/s 376 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as such, on 2.6.2007, she had submitted the case file to PW-14 Prem Chand, the then SDOP, Baijnath. After completion of the investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, she had prepared the final report u/s 173 of the Cr. P.C. against the accused and had instituted the same in the Court. She has also deposed that it was found in the investigation that the prosecutrix had intentionally given wrong information of her destination to the accused so that she was in a position to reach her house safe. She has also found in the investigation that the accused had forcibly taken away the prosecutrix from the path to the site of the crime. In cross-examination, she has admitted that there are two paths to the house of the prosecutrix from village Mudh. She has also denied the suggestion that the accused had committed the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her consent and that she is making false statement in the Court. She has deposed that the prosecutrix had been attending her school from Mud in a bus. 22. PW-16 Dr. Suresh Kaul, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Baijnath has deposed that on 1.6.2007, at about 10.15 p.m., on a reference from the police, she had medically examined the prosecutrix aged about 16 and half years approximately. The prosecutrix was brought to her in school uniform and had not changed her clothes, nor taken bath. She was wearing one check shirt, black and white in colour and vest, black Chunni, Black Salwar, torn in the centre from stitch line and was having white dry stain of 20 mm x 20 mm in dimension over anterior aspect of the salwar. She was wearing one check shirt, black and white in colour and vest, black Chunni, Black Salwar, torn in the centre from stitch line and was having white dry stain of 20 mm x 20 mm in dimension over anterior aspect of the salwar. On examination, she has observed as under:- On local examination of external genitalia, no blood stain over thighs or labia majora, separation of labia minora painful, bruising and laceration about 2 mm x2 mm in dimension over intriotus present red in colour and painful. Dust particles and mud present at intriotus, hymen was torn, fresh torn tags were present, inflamed, tender and red in colour. Thick whitish discharge was present intriotus. Vagina admitted one finger, uterus normal in size os closed. Vaginal (posterior) swab taken. She in her provisional opinion, opined that there was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. She has deposed that the probable duration of injury was within 24 hours caused with blunt weapon. She has also deposed that she had taken into possession the Salwar, Ex. P2, shirt Ex. P-3, Banyan, Ex. P3, and Dupatta Ex. P-5 of the prosecutrix and had sealed these items with seal of the Medical Officer in packet outer cover whereof is Ex. P-1. She also deposed that she had collected the slides from the posterior vagina of the prosecutrix and had sealed the slides for examination by the Chemical Examiner. She testified that she had handed over the sealed packets containing clothes and the slides to the police. She besides deposed hers having collected the pubic hair of the prosecutrix and had sealed the same with seal of the Medical officer. MLR Ex. PW16/A, has been deposed to have been signed and issued by her. On production by the police before her of Ex. PX, which report of the Chemical Examiner on being examined by her, she disposes that she rendered opinion that there was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse, had, not taken place. Her final opinion, is, comprised in Ex. PW16/B. In cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that her opinion was based on conjectures and surmises. She has admitted the suggestion that in every case when the girl is sought to be ravished by force, by dragging her in the forest or otherwise, she would sustain the marks of violence on her person. 23. PW16/B. In cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that her opinion was based on conjectures and surmises. She has admitted the suggestion that in every case when the girl is sought to be ravished by force, by dragging her in the forest or otherwise, she would sustain the marks of violence on her person. 23. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant has canvassed before this court, that the conduct of the prosecutrix, PW-3 comprised in her having taken to tread a previously un-trodden path, in as much, as, she on having alighted from a bus at Mudh, having taken to tread the path passing through the forest thicket, even when, an, alternative habitable path, was, available to be trodden by her, bespeaks of suspicion and renders susceptible to doubt, her conduct and her version qua the incident, as comprised in her deposition. As such, it is contended that it is to be, hence, construed by this Court that the sexual act, if any, perpetrated on the person of the prosecutrix by the accused, is consensual. Besides, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that, when the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shivasharanappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 5 SCC 705 , and Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417 , has denounced and deprecated unnatural conduct and its being construable to be rendering unbelievable the testimony of the witness. In sequel, it is canvassed before this Court, that, the testimony of the prosecutrix, is, uninspiring and necessitates, its, being discarded and rejected. 24. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix is inspiring, trustworthy and credible and the judgment of conviction and consequent sentence, as imposed upon the accused, does not necessitate irreverence. 25. True, it is that two paths were available to be trodden by the prosecutrix for accessing her house. One was a common path accessible by the general public, hence, habitable and the other path, as trodden by her, was through the forest. Even, though, hers taking to tread the untrodden path passing through the forest, appears to be unnatural. 25. True, it is that two paths were available to be trodden by the prosecutrix for accessing her house. One was a common path accessible by the general public, hence, habitable and the other path, as trodden by her, was through the forest. Even, though, hers taking to tread the untrodden path passing through the forest, appears to be unnatural. An inference may tentatively, arise that given the fact that during the course of her treading the untrodden path where she was confronted by the accused, hence, hers encountering the accused in a forest thicket was to screen from public view, the shameful act or the sexual overtures of the accused, were consensual. In other words, prima facie, it, may appear, her unnatural conduct, personified in hers having taken to tread the forest path, was for screening their sexual act, from public view. It may, concomitantly, engender an inference of consent of the prosecutrix to the sexual act as perpetrated upon by the accused. However, even, if, assuming that her conduct, though, appears to be unnatural, yet, it also apparent that she had taken to traverse, through, the untrodden path passing through the forest, as, she intended to put off or avert the accused. In other words, her taking to traverse through the untrodden path appears to be with a view to avert hers encountering the accused. The said inference as drawn by this Court of hers taking tread to untrodden path to avert the accused or to preempt his encountering her, arises, on a reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix, wherein, she, had divulged that she had a conversation with the accused, during whose course, where the accused concerted to elicit from her, the path which she would take for reaching home, to which query, she responded that she would not proceed home, rather would take to go to her mother's sister house. The communication of the prosecutrix per se portrays, the, fact of hers having sensed the nefarious designs of the accused, hence, to avoid hers being pursued by the accused, she having mis-communicated and mis-projected, to, the accused the fact of hers not proceeding home but hers proceeding to her mother's sister house. The communication of the prosecutrix per se portrays, the, fact of hers having sensed the nefarious designs of the accused, hence, to avoid hers being pursued by the accused, she having mis-communicated and mis-projected, to, the accused the fact of hers not proceeding home but hers proceeding to her mother's sister house. Even, if she had reviewed her decision not to proceed to the mother's sister house as conveyed to the accused by her, hers taking to tread the untrodden path, hence, too, appears to be taken recourse to, by the prosecutrix, to, avert hers being pursued and chased by the accused, who, as apparent on a reading of the deposition of the prosecutrix, personifying the concerted effort of the accused to know the destination of the prosecutrix, hence, revealing his intention to chase her, which pursuit was throughout concerted to be avoided by the prosecution, by the efforts on her part as pronounced aforesaid, rather, to consensually meet him their. Consequently, it appears that the prosecutrix, is, deposing truthfully qua the fact, that, given his dogged determination to pursue and chase, her, despite, her, attempts to avert him, in, which endeavour she had taken to adopt, or to traverse through a untrodden path, she could not put him off or avert him, as the accused had kept an eye on her movements, hence, had preceded, her, arrival in the forest of Thatharu, where the alleged occurrence took place. As a sequel, then, it has to be concluded, that, hers taking to tread the path through a forest, was to avert the accused and such acts or conduct of the prosecutrix does not smack of or rear an inference of unnaturalness. In aftermath, it has also to be get concluded, hence, hers taking to tread untrodden path, does not either convey or personify her acquiescence or consent to the sexual intercourse perpetrated on her person by the accused in the forest path. 26. Now the presence of injuries on the person of the accused has remained unexplained. The injuries observed by the Medical Officer, on, the person of the accused are divulged in MLC, Ex. 26. Now the presence of injuries on the person of the accused has remained unexplained. The injuries observed by the Medical Officer, on, the person of the accused are divulged in MLC, Ex. PW1/B and their perusal indubitably unravel the factum, especially, when it has been deposed by PW1, that the injuries appearing on the person of the accused are inflicted within 24 to 36 hours, hence, proximate to the occurrence, that, hence, there was resistance on the part of the prosecutrix to the forcible sexual overtures of the accused. The above existence of abrasions and the injuries on the person of the accused, while pronouncing upon the resistance of the prosecutrix to the sexual overtures of the accused, the, further fact of her salwar and shirt, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3, respectively, having come to be torn, aggravates the palpable fact of hers having resisted the forcible sexual overtures of the accused. The resistance of the prosecutrix to the forcible sexual overtures of the accused personified by both, the injuries existing on the person of the accused, as well as, the tearing of the salwar and shirt of the prosecutrix, as such, belie any inference or do not render open any conclusion that the sexual overtures perpetrated on the person of the prosecutrix by the accused, was, at all consensual. Rather, momentum to the inference that the sexual act perpetrated on the person of the prosecutrix by the accused was forcible, is lent by the factum of existence and presence of injuries on the person of the accused, as well, as, the prosecutrix, articulated, in, Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW16/A, which too, hence, communicate that the prosecutrix is deposing truthfully qua the fact of hers having been dragged by the accused, to, the site where the occurrence had taken place. 27. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed.