JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. - The appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014 passed by the learned additional District & Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Malda, in connection with Sessions Case No. 02/14 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 7(02)2014 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Victim is a blind girl who was barely 18 years old at the time of occurrence. In the night of 14.11.2013 the victim went out of her house to answer natures call. The appellant who was a neighbour forcibly pressed her mouth and took her to a field and raped her. When she resisted the appellant told her to keep quiet uttering 'chup chup'. She identified the appellant by his voice. after committing rape appellant threw her in a nearby well. She cried for help. Local villagers rescued her. Her parents also came to the spot. Her father (P.W.1) lodged written complaint against the appellant resulting in registration of Habibpur P.S. No. 203 of 2013 dated 15.11.2013 under Section 376/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Victim was medically treated. Her statement was recorded before Magistrate. appellant was arrested. Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. Charges were framed under Section 376/307 of the Indian Penal Code. appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. It was the specific defence of the appellant there was a love affair between him and the victim. Victim wanted to marry him. In order to exert pressure on the appellant he was implicated in this false case. To probabilise his defence, appellant examined his wife as D.W.1 and one Shyamali Hembram as D.W.2. In conclusion of trial, learned trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. He, however, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Karmakar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues allegation of rape is a false and concocted story. P.Ws. 1 and 2 parents of the victim girl are silent with regard to rape upon their daughter in court. He, however, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Karmakar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argues allegation of rape is a false and concocted story. P.Ws. 1 and 2 parents of the victim girl are silent with regard to rape upon their daughter in court. Evidence of victim P.W.3 suffers from contradictions and embellishments. Evidence has come on record appellant used to visit the residence of P.W.1 and consume liquor. He had good relation with the victim. These probabilise the defence version that there was a love affair between the parties and to compel the appellant to marry, he was falsely implicated in the instant case. Injuries noted by P.W.6 may have been due to scratches. No injuries was found on the chest, back and breast of the victim girl. Hence, appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. Mr. Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits victim sufffered from blindness. appellant was known to her. She identified the appellant by his voice and stated on the fateful night he had raped her. allegation of forcible rape is corroborated by medical evidence. Doctor who examined the victim found lacerated injuries in her private parts and stated she had been subjected to forcible rape. Defence version is palpably false and was rightly rejected by the trial Judge. appeal is liable to be dismissed. P.W. 3 is the victim and most vital witness. She deposed she suffered from blindness since birth. She was sleeping in her house at night. She went to answer natures call. appellant forcibly pressed her mouth, took her to a field and raped her. When the appellant uttered 'chup chup', victim could identify him by his voice. Thereafter appellant threw her in a nearby well. Victim cried for help. Local witnesses, namely, Shyamali and Shanti rescued her. She stated the incident to her parents. Her parents had talks with villagers. They refused to interfere. Then they went to Habibpur Police Station and lodged complaint. She was taken to the hospital at Bulbulchandi and thereafter to Malda Hospital. She was examined at Malda Hospital. She made statement before the learned Magistrate. In cross-examination, she remained consistent with regard to her version of forcible rape by the appellant. She stated there was bleeding from her vagina. Then they went to Habibpur Police Station and lodged complaint. She was taken to the hospital at Bulbulchandi and thereafter to Malda Hospital. She was examined at Malda Hospital. She made statement before the learned Magistrate. In cross-examination, she remained consistent with regard to her version of forcible rape by the appellant. She stated there was bleeding from her vagina. She clarified though she had good relation with the appellant as a co-villager, she did not have any romantic relationship with him. P.W. 3 is corroborated by P.W. 6, medical officer who examined her at Malda Medical College and Hospital. He stated he found evidence of recent sexual intercourse. Her hymen was lacerated and bleeding. There was slight abrasion in introitus. He also found 1'x 1/4th ' abrasion over her left knee. He proved injury report as 'Exbt.-3'. He also examined the appellant and found he was capable of sexual intercourse. In cross-examination, he stated abrasion of the victim girl in left knee may be due to sudden accidental fall on earth. He did not find injuries on the chest, back and breast of the victim girl. Mr. Karmakar, learned Counsel for the appellant challenges the prosecution case on the ground P.Ws. 1 and 2, parents of the victim, did not depose regarding rape. I have assessed such submission in the light of evidence on record. P.W. 1, father of the victim, deposed at the night of the incident he was sleeping in the varanda of the house. He went outside to answer the natures call. He found his daughter missing and started searching for her. Two village women came and informed him that his daughter had been recovered in a well near the house. He saw his daughter lying in the well. His daughter stated the appellant pushed her in the well. He discussed the matter with the villagers and went to Habibpur Police Station and lodged written complaint which was scribed by P.W. 5. P.W. 2, mother of the victim girl, deposed the victim had been raped by the appellant. Thereafter she had been pushed in the well. Shyamali and Shanti informed them about the incident. They went to the police station and lodged complaint. In cross-examination, she initially stated Shanti told her appellant Dilip Soren raped the victim. Thereafter she corrected herself and stated the victim herself had stated about rape. Thereafter she had been pushed in the well. Shyamali and Shanti informed them about the incident. They went to the police station and lodged complaint. In cross-examination, she initially stated Shanti told her appellant Dilip Soren raped the victim. Thereafter she corrected herself and stated the victim herself had stated about rape. From the aforesaid evidence it appears there is some departure in the deposition of P.W. 1 with reference to the F.I.R. Though in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 stated his daughter had told she had been raped but in court he was silent. However, his wife (P.W. 2), unequivocally stated her daughter was raped by the appellant and thrown in the well. She wholly corroborated her daughter (P.W. 3). as discussed earlier, evidence of P.W. 3 with regard to forcible rape is corroborated by medical evidence on record. In this factual matrix, variation in deposition of P.W. 1 with regard to disclosure of rape is of little consequence and does not affect the veracity of prosecution case. It is argued Shyamali and Shanti who had recovered the victim from the well had not been examined. Neither Shanti nor Shyamali were present when the victim had been forcibly ravished by the appellant. Their examination would be material to prove the prosecution case relating to recovery of the victim from the well and not with regard to forcible rape upon the victim. Soon after the incident victim had narrated the facts to her mother (P W. 2) who had corroborated her. Under such circumstances, non-examination of the aforesaid witnesses does not affect the unfolding of the prosecution case or discredit the victim (P.W. 3) in any manner whatsoever. It appears that appellant tried to create undue influence on the local witnesses and had persuaded one of them namely Shyamali Hembram to depose as D.W. 2 in his favour. Shyamali stated they drew water from the tubewell and there is no well in the village. Her deposition runs against ordinary course of natural events. It is common knowledge that villages in India are dotted with wells. Falsehood of her deposition is further exposed in cross-examination when she was confronted with her earlier statement to the police wherein she appears to have supported the prosecution case. Her deposition runs against ordinary course of natural events. It is common knowledge that villages in India are dotted with wells. Falsehood of her deposition is further exposed in cross-examination when she was confronted with her earlier statement to the police wherein she appears to have supported the prosecution case. Defence of the appellant that there was love affair between him and the victim and that the victim had falsely implicated the appellant in order to exert pressure upon him to marry her is patently absurd. To probabilise the defence he examined his wife as D.W. 1. D.W. 1 claimed the victim was staying in their house for three months and she had protested regarding the free mixing of the appellant and the victim. She, however, admitted she had not lodged any protest prior to the incident to anyone. If the appellant had an amorous relationship and was cohabiting with the victim as his wife, D.W. 1 would like the court to believe, it is highly improbable he would subject the victim to forcible sexual intercourse as proved through medical evidence on record. Defence of the appellant runs hollow and was rightly rejected by the trial court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion conviction of the appellant under section 376 IPC does not call for interference. Coming to the issue of sentence, I note the appellant had committed heinous act of subjecting the victim, who is a helpless blind girl barely 18 years old, to forcible rape. She suffered bleeding injuries in her private parts. In view of gravity of the offence, imposition of maximum sentence of life imprisonment appears to be proportionate and does not call for interference. Sentence imposed on the appellant is also upheld. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant upon completion of all formalities. I agree.