JUDGMENT : Navin Sinha, J. 1. The Appellant stands convicted under Section 376 and 450 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- and 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- respectively by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, dated 17.5.2002 in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1999. 2. According to prosecutrix (PW-1) who was the informant, she along with her husband and others were watching video in the village at night on 6.10.1998. She returned home alone about 10:00 - 11:00 pm. The Appellant came and knocked at about 2:00 am on 7.10.1998. The prosecutrix opened the door and after entering the Appellant sexually assaulted her. Hearing her screams Patiram (PW-3) came running followed by her husband Suresh (PW-2). The Appellant was apprehended on the spot. 3. The petticoat of the prosecutrix was sent for forensic examination. It confirmed presence of semen. The underwear of the Appellant was seized two days later on 9.10.1998. The FSL report was negative. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 8.10.1998. No external injury was found on her person and the Doctor opined that no definite opinion could be given regarding rape as she was habituated to sexual intercourse. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that there are vital contradictions between the statement of the prosecutrix in the FIR and her Court statement. In cross-examination, she completely denied that any such occurrence had taken place. Her husband Suresh (PW-2), and co-villager Patiram (PW-3), also likewise denied the occurrence completely in cross-examination. Considering the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecutrix herself, either no occurrence had taken place or it was a case of consensual physical relationship as they were residents of the same village. The prosecution did not re-examine the prosecutrix (PW-1), Suresh (PW-2) and Patiram (PW-3) under Section 138 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution did not put any questions to them under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. If there were such serious lapses on the part of the prosecution, the benefit must be given to the Appellant if any reasonable doubt arises with regard to the occurrence or manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution did not put any questions to them under Section 154 of the Evidence Act. If there were such serious lapses on the part of the prosecution, the benefit must be given to the Appellant if any reasonable doubt arises with regard to the occurrence or manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. In the alternative, if the Court is not satisfied of the innocence of the Appellant, the sentence of life imprisonment is excessive and requires reconsideration keeping in mind that the Appellant was hardly 21 years of age when the occurrence took place. 5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the Appellant forcibly intruded into the house of the prosecutrix at an unearthly hour well aware that her husband was away in the village watching video. He forced himself upon her. She screamed for help when Patiram (PW-3) followed by her husband Suresh (PW-2) came running and the Appellant was apprehended on the spot. The belongings of the Appellant i.e. chappal, torch and towel have been recovered from the house of the prosecutrix proved by Jagatram (PW-7). No question was asked to the witness in this regard during cross-examination. A panchayat was held in the morning at 7:00 am in which the witness presided in absence of the Sarpanch. The prosecutrix and her husband Suresh, (PW-2) were advised to compromise the matter. The prosecutrix declined and said that she would pursue matter in a police report. The Appellant does not deny that panchayat was held regarding the occurrence. The prosecutrix, her husband (PW-2) and Patiram (PW-3) were then cross-examined 1½ years later. This delay gave enough opportunity to the Appellant for winning over witnesses. The allegations of the prosecutrix fully stands corroborated by the panchayat and the fact that the prosecutrix (PW-1) and Suresh (PW-2) or Patiram (PW-3) may have tried to resile during cross-examination or the failure of the prosecution to re-examine them is not fatal as otherwise from the materials on record the charges stand fully established. 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record. 7. The prosecutrix was a labourer woman. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 7.10.1998 at 2:00 am when her husband was not at home which was to the knowledge of the Appellant. The FIR was lodged the same day at 3:00 pm. 7. The prosecutrix was a labourer woman. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 7.10.1998 at 2:00 am when her husband was not at home which was to the knowledge of the Appellant. The FIR was lodged the same day at 3:00 pm. The prosecutrix has named the Appellant as the person who intruded into her house and sexually assaulted her. The prosecutrix screamed when Patiram (PW-3) and her husband Suresh (PW-2) came running and the Appellant was apprehended on the spot. 8. In her evidence in chief, the prosecutrix was consistent reiterating that the Appellant entered her house and when she screamed he covered her mouth with his hands, pulled down her clothes and assaulted her sexually. Hearing her screams when Patiram (PW-3), came running the Appellant ran away leaving behind his chappal, torch and his towel. Her husband Suresh (PW-2), also came running and caught the Appellant. The latter started to assault in presence of Jagatram (PW-7) when he was told not to do so and that matters would be sorted out in the morning. In the morning, when her husband and others went to the house of the Appellant, he had run away. His conduct becomes a relevant factor against him in the nature of the accusations. 9. Suresh (PW-2), was also consistent stating that on hearing screams of his wife, PW-3, Patiram reached first after which he followed and caught the Appellant. He reiterated the recovery of belongings of the Appellant. The father of the Appellant offered a settlement at the panchayat for a sum of Rs. 500/- requesting not to lodge any report. Patiram (PW-3), deposed that when he went inside, he saw the Appellant over the prosecutrix. Seizure of petticoat of the prosecutrix (Exhibit P-3) was proved by the witness and the chappal, towel and torch of the Appellant (Exhibit P-8) was proved by Jagatram (PW-7), who also corroborated the holding of the panchayat presided by him in absence of the Sarpanch at 7:00 am. Efforts were made to persuade the prosecutrix and her husband not to lodge a prosecution which they declined. 10. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was done on 8.10.1998. Considering that she was a 24 years old married woman accustomed to sexual intercourse, the absence of any conclusive opinion regarding rape or absence of any injuries on her person are considered insignificant. 11. 10. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was done on 8.10.1998. Considering that she was a 24 years old married woman accustomed to sexual intercourse, the absence of any conclusive opinion regarding rape or absence of any injuries on her person are considered insignificant. 11. A conjoint consideration of the Appellant having been apprehended on the spot, recovery of the belongings of the Appellant from the house of the prosecutrix, conduct of the Appellant in having run away the next morning, the holding of the panchayat early in the morning, the offer of the father of the Appellant to pay Rs. 500/- as consideration not to lodge a police report all lead to the inescapable conclusion that the occurrence stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The delay in the trial leading to the cross examination of the three star witnesses 1½ years later obviously gave enough time to the Appellant to win them over by the initial offer of money. The prosecutrix and her husband belonged to the labour class. Monetary compensation by the Appellant appeared to provide them immediate succor given their financial condition and they fell to the lure. But the law and the Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such subversion of the criminal justice delivery system. Section 165 of the Evidence Act imposes a statutory duty on the Court in its duty for the quest into the search of the truth. The Trail Judge unfortunately remained a mute spectator and the prosecution failed to perform its duties. 12. We consider it proper to set out the following extract from (2004) 4 SCC 158 (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat) regarding the larger object of the criminal justice delivery system and the role of the trail judge observing as follows:- "35. This Court has often emphasised that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as a community and are harmful to the society in general. The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice - often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the "majesty of the law". Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a court of law in the future as in the case before it. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators." 13. In (2015) 3 SCC 220 (Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab) it was observed at paragraph 57.2 as follows: "57.2 As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurise the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics." 14. The facts in the present case are telling with regard to what has transpired between these 1½ years. The further observation at paragraph 57.4 is also considered relevant to extract as follows: "57.4 In fact, it is not at all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial." 15. The panchayat and settlement between the parties cannot be countenanced by the law and Court in such cases was considered in (2015) 7 SCC 681 (State of M.P. v. Madanlal) observing:- "18….. We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt to rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These are the offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost. Dignity of a woman is a part of her nonperishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay. There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most. It is sacrosanct. Sometimes solace is given that the perpetrator of the crime has acceded to enter into wedlock with her which is nothing but putting pressure in an adroit manner; and we say with emphasis that the courts are to remain absolutely away from this subterfuge to adopt a soft approach to the case, for any kind of liberal approach has to be put in the compartment of spectacular error. Or to put it differently, it would be in the realm of a sanctuary of error." 16. We are therefore not inclined to consider any plea on quantum of sentence given the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The bail bonds of the Appellant are cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining part of the sentence. 18. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.