JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.2013 and 25.9.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Basirhat North 24 Parganas in Sessions trial no. 4(6)09 arising out Session Case No 9(11)08 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 17.1.2007 at 8 p.m. when none of the in laws of the victim were at home, her uncle in law came to her house and entered her room while she was putting her child to sleep. Suddenly, he gagged her mouth and thereafter committed rape on her. He threatened the victim not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise she would face dire consequences. On the pretext of going to the toilet the victim escaped by locking the door from outside. She came back with her neighbour but the appellant escaped by removing a bamboo fencing around the house. She went to the local panchayet members who claimed that they were busy. On the next day, she went to the police station. They assured her that police force would be sent from the local police outpost but such help did not arrive. Accordingly, on 21.1.2007 she lodged written complaint against the appellant alleging rape. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Charge was framed against the appellant under section 376 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, learned trial judge by judgement and order dated 24.9.2013 and 25.9.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that version of the prosecutrix PW 1 with regard to forcible sexual assault is highly unnatural and improbable. She did not raise any hue and cry and FIR was registered two days after the incident. Other prosecution witnesses particularly PW 3 Sudhansu Pramanik, panchayet member as well as Minati Mondal, PW 8 have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Medical evidence is also inconclusive. Hence, evidence of PW 1 remains uncorroborated and the prosecution case is liable to be failed. 4. Other prosecution witnesses particularly PW 3 Sudhansu Pramanik, panchayet member as well as Minati Mondal, PW 8 have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Medical evidence is also inconclusive. Hence, evidence of PW 1 remains uncorroborated and the prosecution case is liable to be failed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that delay in lodging FIR has been explained by the victim PW 1. Other witnesses had been won over by the appellant who was an influential person in the locality. They were declared hostile and extensively cross examined with regard to their previous statements to police. Hence prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. From the evidence on record, it appears that the evidence of P.W.1 has not been corroborated by other witnesses, including panchayet member Sudhansu Pramanik, P.W.3 to whom the victim initially lodged complaint and Minati Mondal, P.W.8, a neighbor who drafted the complaint. 6. A victim of sexual offence is not an accomplice but is in the same status as an injured witness. It is settled law that conviction may be founded on the uncorroborated version of such a victim provided her evidence is reliable. I have assessed the evidence of P.W.1, (the victim in the present case) from that perspective. P.W.1 deposed that the appellant was her kakasasur (uncle-in-law) and on the fateful night, taking advantage of the absence of her husband and inlaws, had come to her house. At that time she was in the verandah with her child in her lap. In view of the appellant being a close relation, she did not initially suspect any evil intention on his part. When she went to the room for putting the sleeping child in bed, the appellant entered the room and asked her why she has declined to join "Maobadi Sangathan". Thereafter, appellant suddenly held her from behind, gagged her mouth and committed rape on her. He also threatened her that he had kept a secret machine in the room and would kill her and her child if she narrated the incident to anyone. On the excuse of going to the toilet, P.W.1 came out of the room and locked the door from outside and ran for help. He also threatened her that he had kept a secret machine in the room and would kill her and her child if she narrated the incident to anyone. On the excuse of going to the toilet, P.W.1 came out of the room and locked the door from outside and ran for help. When she returned to the room with her neighbours the appellant fled from the room by breaking the bamboo fence around the house. Her neighbours took her to panchayet members who however turned her away claiming that they were busy in a meeting. On the next day when she went to the police station she was assured that police force from the local police camp would go to her house for investigation. Unfortunately, the police did not come and finally on 21.01.2007 she lodged F.I.R.(Ext.1) scribed by P.W.2. She also made statement before magistrate. She was medically treated (Ext.3). She also exhibited a written complainant lodged on 18.01.2007 with Sudansu Pramanik, P.W.3, a panchayat member, (Ext.5). She also proved the seal and stamp of the panchayat (Ext.7) on the document. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground Sudansu Pramanik, P.W.3 and Minati Mondal, P.W.8 who wrote the aforesaid complaint did not support her case. It was also submitted there was enmity between the appellant and P.W.1 over land. Medical evidence does not corroborate allegation of forcible rape. 8. The instant case portrays a pathetic picture of secondary victimisation of a victim of sexual assault. P.W.1 had been forcibly violated by her uncle-in-law. She rushed to the local panchayat office on the selfsame night but was turned away on the plea the members were busy in a meeting. Next day she went to the police station but no complaint was received. She was told policemen would go from the local police camp to investigate the matter. However, no one turned up. Finally, on 21.1.07 she again went to police station and lodged FIR. Lack of cooperation from the local panchayat as well as the law enforcement agency to the unfortunate victim who knocked on their doors seeking legal redress is writ large in the facts of case. Hence, I am of the opinion delay in lodging first information report has been clearly explained and cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix. 9. Hence, I am of the opinion delay in lodging first information report has been clearly explained and cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix. 9. It has been contended that the conduct of the victim was unnatural as she did not raise hue and cry at the first instance. Hence, allegation of forcible sexual assault upon her is improbable and ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. I am unable to accept such defence plea. Admittedly, appellant was known to the victim and consequentially the latter could not have suspected his evil intention when he initially entered the house. Thereafter, the appellant entered her room on the pretext of discussing issue relating to her refusal to join "Maobadi Sangathan". Suddenly, he caught her and gagged her mouth. Unexpected assault from a person in confidence clearly perplexed her and she was unable to raise a hue and cry when she was gagged and raped. Thereafter the appellant threatened her by saying he had kept a secret machine in the room and would kill her and her child. Under such circumstances, without raising hue and cry and risking the lives of her children and herself, P.W.1 escaped from the clutches of her predator by pretending to go to the toilets and called for help. 10. Conduct of the victim in the attending facts and circumstances of the case does not appear to be unnatural. She was a mother of two minor children whose lives were at risk due to the threats held out by the appellant out by the appellant. Hence, I am unwilling to come to a conclusion that conduct of the appellant in not raising hue and cry during the incident is so improbable that her version of forcible rape ought to be disbelieved. Presence of the minor children in the room does not improbabilise the incident. They were aged around 2 years and 6 months respectively and were fast asleep at the time of the incident. For reasons discussed hereinabove the victim was unable to raise hue and cry so as to awaken the children. Accordingly, presence of the children in the room does not rule out the prosecution case of forcible rape of the victim. 11. For reasons discussed hereinabove the victim was unable to raise hue and cry so as to awaken the children. Accordingly, presence of the children in the room does not rule out the prosecution case of forcible rape of the victim. 11. Judging in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view the version of P.W.1 is a truthful one which inspires confidence and can be the sole basis of conviction. 12. Unfortunately, other prosecution witnesses like P.Ws.3 and 8 appear to have been won over and did not support the prosecution case. They were declared hostile and were extensively cross-examined with regard to their previous statements to police wherein they had fully supported the version of the victim. Fact that the said witnesses held back truth from the Court is clear from the contemporaneous complaint lodged by P.W. 1 with the panchayet member P.W.3. The complaint, (Exhibit 5), was scribed by P.W.8. P.W.8, though hostile, has admitted she wrote the complaint on the instruction of the victim P.W.1. These circumstances clearly show that the hostile witnesses had been won over and sought to protect the appellant for reasons not far to seek. 13. Evidence of P.W.6, the doctor who examined the victim has clearly explained due to lapse of time medical evidence of rape may have disappeared. Hence, little importance may be attached to the medical evidence in the facts of the present case. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion version of the victim is reliable and does not suffer from inherent improbabilities. National Crime Record Bureau Reports [1] show more than 90 per cent of cases of rape are perpetrated by relations or known persons. It is, therefore, not unnatural that the appellant, a close relation of the victim, took advantage of her helplessness while her other in-laws were absent to subject the victim to rape. Plea of animosity due to land dispute appears to be farfetched and not convincing. No question was put to P.W.1 on such score and stray statements from a hostile witness in my considered opinion cannot be the foundation of such an entrenched enmity between the parties that would prompt the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of rape. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 16. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 16. Coming to issue of sentence imposed upon him, I note the maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed upon him. The appellant does not appear to have criminal antecedents. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating facts in the present case, I am of the opinion sentence imposed on the appellant may be modified. He is accordingly directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 17. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry, trial and hearing of appeal shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 19. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R.s be sent down to the trial court at once. 20. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. 21. I agree. 1 NCRB Crime in India Statistics in 2018 show that 93.9% of the total rape cases were committed by persons known to the victim. In 2017, in 93% of the total rape cases, the offenders were known to the victim while in 2016, 94.6% of the total cases were committed by relations including father, brother, son, grandfather or other known acquaintances.