JUDGMENT :

S.PUJAHARI, J.

In this appeal, the appellant who stood convicted under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year and also to undergo R.I. for a period of one year respectively, calls in question the legality of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Baliguda in S.T. No.10 of 2012.

2. Facts, briefly stated, are that the victim lady (P.W.10), on 05.09.2011 around 3 p.m. had been to Alingagadanala in village-Jamighati to defecate. Finding her alone, the appellant forcibly emerged at that spot from behind, gagged her mouth and forcibly pulled her to a lonely place. She made efforts to escape and begged the appellant to leave her she being his relative. Notwithstanding, in an erotic impulse, the appellant threatened her at a knife point to kill if she shout for help and try to escape. Succumbing to the threat, she remained silence and the appellant committed rape on her. After he devoured her, the appellant also threatened her with dire consequences if she divulged the matter before others. The victim on arriving home narrated before her husband and elder brother of her husband as to how despite her protest the appellant at a knife point ravished her to satisfy his sexual appetite. She having sustained pain for such ravishment, no report could be lodged immediately thereafter. On advice of villagers, on 07.09.2011 the victim and her husband – Puleswar Naik (P.W.11) proceeded to the Tumudibandha Police Station and lodged F.I.R and the matter was investigated into. The victim and the appellant were sent for medical examination. After due investigation, charge-sheet was laid by the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) against the appellant under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and advanced a plea of false implication.

To substantiate the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined altogether 19 witnesses. P.W.10 is the victim, P.W.11 is her husband and P.W.12 is the doctor who medically examined the victim and the appellant. P.Ws.1, 3, 14 and 15 are relatives of the victim before whom the victim had narrated the alleged sexual act committed by the appellant. P.W.18 is the Investigating Officer. Besides, few neighbours and persons in whose presence articles were seized, were also examined. Defence chooses not to examine any witness. After careful study of the entire evidence placed on record and accepting the version of the victim corroborated by other witnesses, the learned trial court concluded that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and convicted thereunder.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in absence of corroboration from medical evidence, and other witnesses being close relatives of the victim and there being unexplained delay in lodging the information, no reliance ought to have been placed on the testimony of the victim to hold the appellant guilty, as aforesaid.

4. Per contra, the learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction. It has been submitted that there is no reason to discredit the testimony of the victim who stood firm in her version and when no substantial material elicited to discard her testimony which is corroborated from her immediate conduct. Replying to the criticism with regard to the medical evidence by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Addl. Government Advocate has contended that corroboration by medical evidence is always not essential to establish the offence of ‘rape’ particularly when the victim is a married lady and accustomed to sexual intercourse.

5. The questions raised at the Bar need careful evaluation of evidence. In essence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that th