JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. - Mr. Rana Mukherjee and Ms. Sujata Das, learned Advocates are requested to appear on behalf of the State. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2013 and 23.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No.28(1)/2013 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is to the effect that on 05.09.2012 at about 1.30 P.M. the victim P.W.4 had entered the bath room to take a bath. Appellant rushed into the bath room by showing her knife and forcibly raped her. She complained about the incident to her husband, P.W.3. Both of them went to their employer. P.W.1, a Wing Commander attached to Air Force Station at Kalaikunda. Thereafter, P.W.3, husband of the victim lady lodged First Information Report. 4. In the course of investigation, knife was seized. The victim was medically examined and made statement before the Magistrate. Charge was framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It was his specific defence that out of animosity P.W.1, employer of the victim lady had falsely implicated him. 5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Appellant, however, did not examine any witness to probabilise his defence. In conclusion of trial, trial court by judgment and order dated 21.12.2013 and 23.12.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the allegation of forcible rape is out and out false. There is delay in lodging the first information report. P.W.1 set up the instant case in order to implicate the appellant as he had not sent his wife to work as maid servant in his house. He accordingly prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of P.W.4, victim lady is not only corroborated by her husband P.W.3 but also other witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have examined the evidence on record particularly that of the victim lady, P.W.4. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of P.W.4, victim lady is not only corroborated by her husband P.W.3 but also other witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have examined the evidence on record particularly that of the victim lady, P.W.4. She deposed that she was working as maid servant along with her husband under P.W.1, an Air Force Officer. Her husband, P.W.3 used to work as a cook. On 05.09.2012 at about 1.30 P.M. she had gone to the bath room for bathing. At that time, appellant entered into the bath room by pushing the door, with a knife in hand. She resisted but he threatened to kill her by cutting her throat. He also slapped her. Thereafter, he forcibly removed her inner garment and raped her. Before leaving he poured water from a bucket on her body. She returned home weeping and informed her husband. Both of them went to the residence of P.W.1, their employer. They narrated the incident to him and his wife, P.W.2. He advised them to lodge the first information report. Police arrived at the spot and recovered the knife from a nearby bush. She identified the knife. Police seized wearing apparels under a seizure list. She was medically examined before the Doctor. She made statement before the Magistrate. Her evidence remained unshaken in the course of crossexamination. She explained that the door of the bath room was closed but unbolted. Evidence of the victim lady has been corroborated not only by her husband, P.W.3 but also P.W.1 and P.W.2 as employer and his wife respectively. 9. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are witnesses to the recovery of the knife from the place of occurrence. 10. From the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that the version of the victim lady has been substantially corroborated by independent witnesses as well as seizure of the knife from a nearby bush. 11. In the light of the aforesaid evidence on record, improbabilities suggested by the appellant do not hold water and I am inclined to rely on the version of the victim lady that she had been forcibly ravished. 12. The defence raised by the appellant during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to animosity of P.W.1 appears to be a desperate one. 12. The defence raised by the appellant during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to animosity of P.W.1 appears to be a desperate one. No cross-examination in this regard had been made of the witnesses particularly P.W.1. 13. In the light of the discussions, I uphold the conviction recorded against the appellant. 14. Coming to the issue of sentence, I am informed that the appellant has undergone sentence for more than nine years. 15. Under such circumstances, I modify the sentence imposed on the appellant and direct that he shall suffer imprisonment for the period undergone and shall pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 16. With the aforesaid modification with regard to the sentence, the appeal is disposed of. 17. The period of detention suffered by appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. Copy of the judgment along with lower court records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities. 20. I agree.