JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. The instant appeal is preferred challenging the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Sessions, Kottayam, in S.C.No. 133 of 2019 on the files of the said court. In the above case, the appellant was accused of committing maternal incest and he was charged under Section 376(2)(f) & (n) of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, he was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offences charged. 2. According to the prosecution, the survivor, who is the mother of the appellant, had three sons. The appellant was residing with his mother in house bearing No. 125 in Ward No.VIII of Vazhappally Grama Panchayat. As per the charge, on 29.08.2018, at about 9.30 p.m., the appellant committed rape on PW1 on multiple occasions till the dawn on the next day. 3. On 06.09.2018 at 1.55 p.m., PW1 went to the Changanassery Police Station to lodge the statement. However, on reaching the Police Station, she collapsed and was therefore rushed to the Government General Hospital, Changanassery. While in the casualty, Ext.P1 statement of PW1 was recorded by PW11, the Senior Women Police Officer, and based on the same Ext.P12 FIR in Crime No.1958 of 2018 was registered under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Changanassery Police Station. On 06.09.2018, the appellant was arrested as per Ext.P13 arrest memo. Measures were taken by the medical professional to conduct the examination of the survivor as well as the accused. Samples of body fluids were forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab. The 164 Statement of the victim was recorded and after completing the investigation, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate, Changanassery. 4. Committal proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the law, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was finally made over to the Additional Sessions Judge -IV, Kottayam for trial and disposal. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed under Section 376(2)(f) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code. When the same was read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried in accordance with the law. 5. The case was finally made over to the Additional Sessions Judge -IV, Kottayam for trial and disposal. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed under Section 376(2)(f) and (n) of the Indian Penal Code. When the same was read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried in accordance with the law. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 14 and through them, Exts.P1 to P7 were exhibited and marked. MO1 Kavimundu worn by the accused at the time of the commission of the offence was produced and identified. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He maintained that he was innocent. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, relied on the evidence of PW1, the survivor, PW3 (the daughter-in-law) to whom the commission of the dastardly act was disclosed by the mother and PW6, the Doctor who examined the survivor and prepared Ext.P5 certificate, and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established that the mother was subjected to repeated instances of rape. The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is under challenge in this appeal. 7. Smt. Resmi Nandanan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had seriously erred in relying upon the evidence of PW1 (Survivor) to arrive at the finding of guilt. She would point out that there is a long and undue delay in setting the law in motion. While the incident had taken place on 29.08.2018, the FIS was furnished only on 06.09.2018. It is urged that on the next day, PW1 furnished Ext.P4 164 Statement before the learned Magistrate. She would urge that the version given by the witness before the Court was at variance and numerous omissions, as well as contradictions, were brought out. The embellishments, omissions and contradictions brought out in the evidence would discredit the version of the witness and she cannot be regarded as a witness of a sterling nature. She would urge that the version given by the witness before the Court was at variance and numerous omissions, as well as contradictions, were brought out. The embellishments, omissions and contradictions brought out in the evidence would discredit the version of the witness and she cannot be regarded as a witness of a sterling nature. The learned counsel would then point out that PW2, the son of PW1, as well as PW3, the daughter-in-law of the survivor, did not support the case of the prosecution in full. There is no independent evidence to corroborate the version of the survivor. She would point out that PW2, the son of PW1, was residing in a shed on the south-western corner of the house of the survivor, and if the incident of the nature alleged by PW1 had, in fact, taken place, there is every likelihood that the son, as well as his family members, would have been alerted and would have come to the rescue. The learned counsel would then submit that during cross-examination, a specific question was posed regarding PW1's relationship with one Aneesh, which was questioned by the appellant. It is submitted that the son was falsely implicated due to the dispute arising from this relationship. The learned counsel would then refer to the evidence of PW6, the Doctor had examined PW1. According to the learned counsel, though PW1 had stated that she was subjected to serious physical abuse and that the accused had bit on her body as well, and her specific case is that she had resisted the acts of the accused, no indications of physical assault were found on her body. This would show that the version of PW1 was not true. Finally, the learned counsel submits that even the son of the survivor did not support the version of the prosecution. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in placing implicit faith in the evidence of PW1 to convict the appellant. 8. Smt. Neema K.V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submissions. She submits that the learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW1 to arrive at the finding of guilt. She states that the minor omissions, embellishments, and contradictions found in the evidence are liable to be ignored as they were not material in nature. 9. Smt. Neema K.V., the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed the submissions. She submits that the learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW1 to arrive at the finding of guilt. She states that the minor omissions, embellishments, and contradictions found in the evidence are liable to be ignored as they were not material in nature. 9. We have considered the submissions advanced and perused the entire records. We have carefully reviewed the judgment impugned. 10. PW1 is the survivor. She stated that her husband had expired about four years back. The appellant had been staying with her in the same house. According to her, on 29.08.2018, while she was reciting her prayers, her son asked her whether she is not going to the house of PW4 to watch television. She returned back at about 9:00 p.m. and had her dinner. When she was about to enter her room, the accused forcefully took her to the bed and she was held by the scruff of her neck. He then threatened her and removed her clothes. Her son did whatever a husband does to his wife. She added that she was subjected to sexual abuse till the dawn on the next day. She added that the accused asked her to live as his wife. On the next day, she disclosed the incident to one Ponnamma, her relative and Ramachandran Nair (PW5), her neighbour. She, initially, was reluctant to inform the police as she did not want people to know about the acts committed by her son. However, when he continued to trouble her, she decided to approach the police. Though she was subjected to roving cross-examination, she withstood the same and reiterated that the accused had subjected her to serious acts of sexual abuse. She stated that she had lodged a complaint against Rajeev, another son of hers, when he committed mischief and caused damages to her residence. She added that on the date of the incident, the appellant had consumed alcohol and smoked Ganja and she could smell the stench. During cross-examination, the defence was able to bring out some embellishments. However, we do not think that any of those embellishments were material. 11. PW2 is the accused's twin brother. He stated that he received information about the incident from his wife. However, he did not support the prosecution's case in its entirety. During cross-examination, the defence was able to bring out some embellishments. However, we do not think that any of those embellishments were material. 11. PW2 is the accused's twin brother. He stated that he received information about the incident from his wife. However, he did not support the prosecution's case in its entirety. He, however, stated that on 29.08.2018, only the appellant and his mother were at home. 12. PW3 is the wife of PW2. In her evidence, she stated that on 30.08.2018, in the morning, PW1 told her that the appellant had raped her on the previous night. She also stated that PW1 had told her that the appellant had threatened her from disclosing the incident to any other person. She stated that the relationship between her husband and the appellant was strained. According to her, immediately after the incident, PW1 shifted her residence to the house of Bindhu (PW4) and after that, she shifted to the Tarawad house. 13. PW4, Bindhu, stated before the Court that the appellant and his mother, Rathnamma, were residing in adjacent buildings and that they were known to her. She stated that on 30.08.2018, in the morning, PW1 told her that the appellant had subjected her to rape and requested her to permit PW1 to stay in her house. According to her, PW1 stayed in her house for about a month. Thereafter, PW1 started staying in the house of her sister, in a place called ‘Mukkoor’. She stated that the appellant is an alcoholic. 14. PW5, Ramachandran Nair, is the neighbour of PW1. He stated that when he returned back after work on 30.08.2018, PW1 told him that she was subjected to rape by the appellant. 15. PW6 is the Doctor who had examined the PW1 (survivor) on 06.09.2018. He stated that PW1 had stated to him that her son had subjected her to forceful sexual intercourse on 29.08.2018 at 9:30 p.m. and the same continued for several hours. On examination, he found that the vulval outlet was congested and the Labia majora and Labia minora were atrophic. However, the vestibule was normal and the hymen was absent. He also did not note any fresh tears anywhere in her private parts. Though PW1 had stated to him that her son had bitten over her breast, no injuries were seen over the breast. However, the vestibule was normal and the hymen was absent. He also did not note any fresh tears anywhere in her private parts. Though PW1 had stated to him that her son had bitten over her breast, no injuries were seen over the breast. He also did not notice any fresh or old injuries on the body of the survivor. 16. PW8 is an attestor to the Ext.P8 Mahazar and PW9 is the Village Officer who prepared the Site Plan. 17. In the light of the evidence let in, the only question is whether the evidence tendered by PW1 is believable. The first contention raised by the learned counsel concerns the delay in setting the law in motion. From the evidence let in by PW1, PW2 and PW4, it is discernible that on the next day of the occurrence, PW1 disclosed the details of the abuse that she was subjected to by her son. PW1 has also stated that she did not want to get the police involved in view of the fact that the appellant is her own son. She thought about the stigma attached to the same and the impression that the said occurrence would create on the general public. It was when the accused continued with his taunts and harassment that PW1 was forced to go to the police station and lodge the complaint before PW11. From the evidence of PW11, it can be seen that PW1 was sick and she collapsed and had to be admitted to the hospital. We are of the view that PW1 has furnished a plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint before the police. No mother would want to go to the public authorities and disclose that she has been abused by her own son. 18. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel is with regard to the embellishments in the evidence of PW1. We have already narrated the evidence tendered by her. The defence has been able to show that the survivor has embellished some portions of her evidence. However, the fact remains that insofar as the core aspect is concerned, which is the subjection of rape by the appellant, the version of the victim is consistent. The minor embellishments brought out by the defence will not in any way affect the evidence tendered by the witness. However, the fact remains that insofar as the core aspect is concerned, which is the subjection of rape by the appellant, the version of the victim is consistent. The minor embellishments brought out by the defence will not in any way affect the evidence tendered by the witness. It is by now settled beyond any semblance of doubt that the evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on its basis if the same is reliable. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh,, [1996 AIR SC 1393] is an authority for the above principle of law, wherein it was held as under: "21... The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." 19. If any more authority is required, one only needs to refer to the observations in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, [ 1983 (3) SCC 217 ] , where the Apex Court observed as under: "9..In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?" 20. Applying the principles above to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the mother is trustworthy and there is no reason to doubt her version. Applying the principles above to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the mother is trustworthy and there is no reason to doubt her version. Except for bringing out minor embellishments in her evidence, which is only natural, the appellant has not been able to undermine the creditworthiness and inherent truthfulness of her evidence. 21. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is with regard to the absence of injuries on the body of the mother. The survivor is a lady aged 60 years and in her evidence, she had stated that she was not in a position to resist the brutal assault made by her own son. PW1 was pushed into a cot and was subjected to abuse. She stated that all that she could do was yield to the assault due to her weakness and the strength of her son. She also said that she used to lose her consciousness every now and then and the accused would wake her up. We are of the view that the absence of injuries on the body of PW1 will not in any way affect the credibility of the version given by the mother. Identical contentions were raised in Lok Mal @ Loku v State of U.P, [( 2025 KHC OnLine 7191)] and while rejecting the same, it was observed as under: 6. Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to the version of the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks. 22. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the likelihood of the incident happening without the same being noticed by the neighbours is remote. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks. 22. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the likelihood of the incident happening without the same being noticed by the neighbours is remote. She points out that it has come out in evidence that PWs 2 and 3 are residing in a shed adjacent to the house. We find that the relationship between the brothers and between Rajeev and his mother is strained. Furthermore, the accused was in a position to dominate the mother. PW1 had also stated that he clutched her mouth in order to prevent her from alerting the neighbours. We do not think that the said contention advanced by the learned counsel carries any merit. On an evaluation of the entire evidence, we are of the view that no grounds are made out by the appellant to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter, this appeal will stand dismissed.