State of U.P v. Ramveer Pal), arising out of Case Crime No

03.02.2013 which is Ex.Ka-1 at the trial. On that, FIR was registered on the above described Case Crime number. It is Ext.Ka- 8 at the trial. Upon the FIR being lodged, the clothes of the appellant as also the clothes of the victim were recovered by the police on 03.02.2013. The Recovery Memo of the underwear worn by the appellant (at the time of the occurrence), is Ex.Ka-11 at the trial. The Recovery Memo of the clothes of the victim (worn at the time of the occurrence), recovered by the police is Ex.Ka-2 at the trial. On 03.02.2013, the victim 'M' (P.W.-2 at the trial) was subjected to medical examination both to ascertain her radiological age as also injuries suffered by her, if any. The radiological age of the victim was opined to be about 15 years by Dr. Yogendra Singh (P.W.-3 at the trial). Her medical examination was conducted by Dr. Shobha Mishra (P.W.-4 at the trial). In that, she recorded as below : “Private part examination- No mark of injury over private part. Hymen old torn. Vagina admits 2 fingers easily. Vaginal smear taken slide made and send to Pathologist for detection of any alive or dead sperm”.

4. The radiological report submitted by Dr. Yogendra Singh is Ex.Ka-4 at the trial whereas the medical report of Dr. Shobha Mishra is Ex.Ka-5 at the trial.

5. Twelve days after the occurrence, the statement of the victim 'M' was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In that, she supported the allegation of rape suffered by her, as narrated in the FIR. She further disclosed that after her aunt (Chachi) arrived at the scene, the appellant fled. She further specified that she did not suffer any bleeding in the occurrence. -2-

6. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer Prempal Singh (P.W.-6 at the trial) submitted Charge-sheet. Upon the case being committed for trial to the Court of Sessions, the learned court below framed the following charges : ";g fd fnukad 2&2&2013 dks le; djhc 3 cts fnu LFkku िविनोद पाल का लाह का खेत स्थान ग्राम मरहला थाना मोहम्मदाबाद िजिला फर्रर खाबाद मे आपने विादी मुकदमा 'R' की पुत्री 'M' अवियस्क आयु 14 विषर के साथ बलपूर्विरक उसकी मजिी के िविरद्ध बलात्संग िकया। इस प्रकार आपने एक ऐसा अपराध कािरत िकया जिो भारतीय दण्ड संिहता की धारा 376 के अधीन दण्डनीय है तथा इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान मे है।"

7. At the trial, besides the above documentary evidence, the prosecution relied on oral evidence of six witnesses. In that, the first informant 'R' who is the father of the victim 'M' was examined as P.W.-1. He is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He proved the factum of the FIR being registered at his instance against Written Report dated 03.02.2013 (Ex.Ka-1 at the trial). Next, the victim 'M' was examined as P.W.-2. She disclosed that on

02.02.2013 she had gone to attend to the call of nature, at about 3 p.m. At that juncture, the appellant caught hold of her and committed rape on her. She narrated that the occurrence was witnessed by her aunt (Chachi) 'N' who had arrived at the scene. At that point, the appellant fled. The victim returned home and informed her mother about the occurrence.

8. Thereafter, along with her father 'R' (P.W.-1), she went to the Police Station, the next day-to lodge the FIR. She proved her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.Ka-3). During her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant first caught hold of her. She had cried for help, twice. However, none arrived to save her at that place. She also claimed that her clothes were torn in that occurrence.

9. She further proved that the house of the appellant was situated in -3- front of her own house. She denied the suggestion that there was any animosity between the parties. She denied the further suggestion that false case had been lodged at her instance. She denied knowledge of any other transaction between the parties.

10. Thereafter, Dr. Yogendra Singh, Radiologist, was examined as P.W.-3. He proved the radiology report. He opined that the victim was about 15 years of age on the date of occurrence. Next, Dr. Shobha Mishra was examined as P.W.-4. She proved the medical examination report (Ext.Ka-5). She specifically proved that the victim had not suffered any injury on her private part and that the hymen was old torn. She further proved, according to the Supplementary Medical Report (Ex.Ka-7 at the trial), no live or dead spermatozoa were detected in the vaginal swab drawn from 'M'. She also proved that the age of the victim was about 15 years, on the date of occurrence. According to her, no definite opinion regarding recent sexual activity could be given since the victim was accustomed to sexual activity.

11. Next, Head Constable Jitendra Singh Chandel, the then Constable Clerk was examined as P.W.-5. He proved the registration of the case. Last, S.I. Prempal Singh, the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.-6. He proved the investigation.

12. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Besides denying the adverse circumstances cited against him, he further stated that he had been falsely implicated for supporting one Manoj at the election for the Village Pradhan. According to him, the first informant was a relative of one Suresh who had also contested that election, but lost. Only for that reason, the appellant was falsely implicated. Thereafter, Smt. Renu was examined as D.W.-1, by the defence. She tried to state that the victim was about 22 years of age and was a person of a bad -4- character. She further stated that a false case had been lodged against the appellant with the support of Village Pradhan Suresh.

13. In such circumstances, the learned court below has convicted the appellant and sentenced him.

14. Submission is, the prosecution story is false. No such occurrence as narrated had occurred. The appellant was falsely implicated for reason of supporting a rival candidate Manoj, at the Pradhan election, against the wishes of the first informant 'R' who wanted his relative to win at that election. Since the relative of 'R' lost the election and Manoj supported by appellant had won that election, a wholly false prosecution was lodged.

15. Second, besides the oral evidence of the victim 'M' , there is no corroborative material to establish its correctness or truthfulness. Though the victim described forcible occurrence where she was overpowered, remarkably no injury, either external or internal was noted during her medical examination, though that was conducted promptly, the next day.

16. Third, it has been submitted, the statement of the victim was recorded with delay. Clearly, she was tutored and prepared by her family to make that statement to take revenge from the appellant. Thus, her statement came to be recorded after 12 days.

17. Fourth, it has been stated, even as to the time of occurrence, there is discrepancy inasmuch as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim 'M' indicated that the occurrence took place at 3 a.m. whereas later she modified that statement and materially altered it by stating that the occurrence took place at 3 p.m.

18. Fifth, it has been submitted, though the prosecution claimed that two other witnesses had reached the place of occurrence including -5- the aunt (Chachi) of the victim 'M' namely 'N' and another person Balakram. That narration made in the FIR was not supported by the victim 'M' in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as she did not name Balakram. In any case those persons were not examined at the trial.

19. Further, it has been submitted, there is no forensic evidence of rape suffered by the victim 'M' inasmuch as there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory with respect to the clothing of the parties. The pathology report does not support the occurrence of rape inasmuch neither any live nor dead spermatozoa was detected in the vaginal swab drawn from 'M'.

20. Alternatively, it has been submitted, even if such conviction were to be upheld, the learned court below has erred in awarding maximum sentence i.e. life imprisonment to the appellant. Against that sentence awarded, the appellant has remained confined for 10 years and 25 days (actual). He was released on bail by this Court (in this appeal) on 03.02.2023.

21. On such submission advanced, on the last date, we required the learned A.G.A. to produce the Custody Certificate of the appellant. Today, the Custody Certificate of the appellant has been produced. It discloses, he has remained confined for 10 years and 25 days (actual). That Custody Certificate has been marked as 'X' and retained on record.

22. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. would submit, present is a case of penetrative sexual assault. Independent witnesses are hard to come by in such cases. Also, the testimony of a rape survivor stands on a higher pedestal as that of an injured witness. Insofar as no material discrepancy or improvement was offered by 'M' in her testimony and insofar as that deposition made by 'M' is wholly consistent to the FIR allegation in material parts, and further -6- inasmuch as the FIR itself was lodged promptly i.e. the next day itself, no interference is warranted on minor inconsistencies and deficiencies (if at all), pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant. As to sentence, it has been further submitted that the occurrence being of rape on a minor girl, the award of maximum sentence may not be interfered with.

23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, on the issue of conviction, we find, in the first place, the FIR was lodged within 24 hours of the occurrence. In that regard, 'M' (P.W.-2) during her examination-in-chief proved that the informant side had tried to lodge the FIR in the evening of

02.02.2013 itself, however, it remains a fact that such FIR was not lodged in the evening of 02.02.2013 but it was lodged on

03.02.2013 at about 4:10 P.M. The socio-economic profile of the parties (informant side) is that of simple villagers. It was further explained by 'M' (P.W.-2), during her cross-examination that she was shaken up by the occurrence, to the point, she had taken ill in the evening of 02.02.2013. Also, that part of her deposition further reveals that there was some discussion in the family whether to report the matter to the police or not. In the entirety of those facts, proven at the trial, it does not appear that there was any extra ordinary delay in the FIR being lodged as may itself create a reasonable doubt in the truthfulness or completeness of the prosecution story.

24. In the first place, as to the delay in lodging the FIR that too in rape cases, the law is clear. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Narayan (1992) 3 SCC 615, in the context of delay of two days in lodging the FIR, it was noticed by the Supreme Court that in cases of sexual assault, amongst other, a woman and her relatives have to struggle with several situations before they may approach the -7- police. In that it was observed as below : “6. … True it is that the complaint was lodged two days later but as stated earlier Indian society being what it is the victims of such a crime ~ ordinarily consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police since it involves the question of morality and chastity of a married woman. A woman and her relatives have to struggle with several situations before deciding to approach the police, more so when the culprit happens to be related. In such cases, therefore, the delay is understandable and hence merely on that account the prosecution version cannot be doubted.”

25. Then, according to the FIR, the appellant caused the occurrence during day hours. Though the time first disclosed by 'R' (P.W.-1), is not with reference to 'A.M.' or 'P.M.', at the same time, the first information report clearly disclosed that the occurrence was caused “kareeb 3 baje din”. Thus clearly, it was a day time occurrence reported by P.W.-1. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim 'M' (P.W.-2) described the time “subah teen baje”. That was not a material error in the description of the time of the occurrence by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 (in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.). In any case, the same was wholly explained by the victim 'M' (P.W.-2) during her examination-in- chief. Then, 'R' (P.W.-1) consistently described the time as 3. That may not refer to 3 a.m. on 02.02.2013. To that extent, we find no material improvement or alteration or inconsistency in the evidence led by the prosecution.

26. Insofar as the occurrence is concerned, a wholly consistent account emerged during the trial wherein the victim 'M' (P.W.-2) narrated that she had gone to the agricultural field to attend to the call of nature where the appellant assaulted her, there. He first overpowered her; threw her to the ground and thereafter committed rape on her. Upon her crying for help, others reached the place.

27. The fact that the independent witnesses were not relied or examined by the prosecution, is not a principle in law that may lead -8- to a reasonable doubt. Nor it may be enforced by way of a rule of prudence in every case, by Courts. First, it has to be examined if the testimony of the rape survivor inspires confidence; is credible and trustworthy. Here, as noticed above, the deposition of 'M' P.W.-2 does not admit of any doubt. She was subjected to extensive cross- examination on behalf of the appellant. Without fail and without any material improvement or inconsistency emerging, she maintained that she had suffered the occurrence but no internal or external injury was received by her. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had specified that she did not suffer from any bleeding in the occurrence. Merely because such injury may not have been suffered by the victim 'M' (P.W.-2), no reasonable doubt may arise as to the trustworthiness and truthfulness of her testimony. It may not be forgotten that the victim consistently narrated that she suffered the occurrence in an agricultural field where mustard crop was standing. By very nature of that place of occurrence described, no hard object or vegetation may be perceived to exist as may give rise to a presumption that injury would necessarily have been suffered by the victim at such a place of occurrence. In any case, during the cross-examination availed by the appellant, no doubt emerged as may allow the Court to entertain a possibility that if the occurrence had taken place in the manner described by the prosecution, external or internal injury would be a necessary concomitant of that occurrence.

28. It is not the law that a rape victim would suffer physical injury, either external or internal, by way of natural or necessary effect arising from sufferance of rape. In Rafiq v. State of U.P., (1980) 4 SCC 262 the Supreme Court observed as below :

03.02.2013 which is Ex.Ka-1 at the trial. On that, FIR was registered on the above described Case Crime number. It is Ext.Ka- 8 at the trial. Upon the FIR being lodged, the clothes of the appellant as also the clothes of the victim were recovered by the police on 03.02.2013. The Recovery Memo of the underwear worn by the appellant (at the time of the occurrence), is Ex.Ka-11 at the trial. The Recovery Memo of the clothes of the victim (worn at the time of the occurrence), recovered by the police is Ex.Ka-2 at the trial. On 03.02.2013, the victim 'M' (P.W.-2 at the trial) was subjected to medical examination both to ascertain her radiological age as also injuries suffered by her, if any. The radiological age of the victim was opined to be about 15 years by Dr. Yogendra Singh (P.W.-3 at the trial). Her medical examination was conducted by Dr. Shobha Mishra (P.W.-4 at the trial). In that, she recorded as below : “Private part examination- No mark of injury over private part. Hymen old torn. Vagina admits 2 fingers easily. Vaginal smear taken slide made and send to Pathologist for detection of any alive or dead sperm”.

4. The radiological report submitted by Dr. Yogendra Singh is Ex.Ka-4 at the trial whereas the medical report of Dr. Shobha Mishra is Ex.Ka-5 at the trial.

5. Twelve days after the occurrence, the statement of the victim 'M' was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In that, she supported the allegation of rape suffered by her, as narrated in the FIR. She further disclosed that after her aunt (Chachi) arrived at the scene, the appellant fled. She further specified that she did not suffer any bleeding in the occurrence. -2-

6. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer Prempal Singh (P.W.-6 at the trial) submitted Charge-sheet. Upon the case being committed for trial to the Court of Sessions, the learned court below framed the following charges : ";g fd fnukad 2&2&2013 dks le; djhc 3 cts fnu LFkku िविनोद पाल का लाह का खेत स्थान ग्राम मरहला थाना मोहम्मदाबाद िजिला फर्रर खाबाद मे आपने विादी मुकदमा 'R' की पुत्री 'M' अवियस्क आयु 14 विषर के साथ बलपूर्विरक उसकी मजिी के िविरद्ध बलात्संग िकया। इस प्रकार आपने एक ऐसा अपराध कािरत िकया जिो भारतीय दण्ड संिहता की धारा 376 के अधीन दण्डनीय है तथा इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान मे है।"

7. At the trial, besides the above documentary evidence, the prosecution relied on oral evidence of six witnesses. In that, the first informant 'R' who is the father of the victim 'M' was examined as P.W.-1. He is not an eye-witness of the occurrence. He proved the factum of the FIR being registered at his instance against Written Report dated 03.02.2013 (Ex.Ka-1 at the trial). Next, the victim 'M' was examined as P.W.-2. She disclosed that on

02.02.2013 she had gone to attend to the call of nature, at about 3 p.m. At that juncture, the appellant caught hold of her and committed rape on her. She narrated that the occurrence was witnessed by her aunt (Chachi) 'N' who had arrived at the scene. At that point, the appellant fled. The victim returned home and informed her mother about the occurrence.

8. Thereafter, along with her father 'R' (P.W.-1), she went to the Police Station, the next day-to lodge the FIR. She proved her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.Ka-3). During her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant first caught hold of her. She had cried for help, twice. However, none arrived to save her at that place. She also claimed that her clothes were torn in that occurrence.

9. She further proved that the house of the appellant was situated in -3- front of her own house. She denied the suggestion that there was any animosity between the parties. She denied the further suggestion that false case had been lodged at her instance. She denied knowledge of any other transaction between the parties.

10. Thereafter, Dr. Yogendra Singh, Radiologist, was examined as P.W.-3. He proved the radiology report. He opined that the victim was about 15 years of age on the date of occurrence. Next, Dr. Shobha Mishra was examined as P.W.-4. She proved the medical examination report (Ext.Ka-5). She specifically proved that the victim had not suffered any injury on her private part and that the hymen was old torn. She further proved, according to the Supplementary Medical Report (Ex.Ka-7 at the trial), no live or dead spermatozoa were detected in the vaginal swab drawn from 'M'. She also proved that the age of the victim was about 15 years, on the date of occurrence. According to her, no definite opinion regarding recent sexual activity could be given since the victim was accustomed to sexual activity.

11. Next, Head Constable Jitendra Singh Chandel, the then Constable Clerk was examined as P.W.-5. He proved the registration of the case. Last, S.I. Prempal Singh, the Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.-6. He proved the investigation.

12. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Besides denying the adverse circumstances cited against him, he further stated that he had been falsely implicated for supporting one Manoj at the election for the Village Pradhan. According to him, the first informant was a relative of one Suresh who had also contested that election, but lost. Only for that reason, the appellant was falsely implicated. Thereafter, Smt. Renu was examined as D.W.-1, by the defence. She tried to state that the victim was about 22 years of age and was a person of a bad -4- character. She further stated that a false case had been lodged against the appellant with the support of Village Pradhan Suresh.

13. In such circumstances, the learned court below has convicted the appellant and sentenced him.

14. Submission is, the prosecution story is false. No such occurrence as narrated had occurred. The appellant was falsely implicated for reason of supporting a rival candidate Manoj, at the Pradhan election, against the wishes of the first informant 'R' who wanted his relative to win at that election. Since the relative of 'R' lost the election and Manoj supported by appellant had won that election, a wholly false prosecution was lodged.

15. Second, besides the oral evidence of the victim 'M' , there is no corroborative material to establish its correctness or truthfulness. Though the victim described forcible occurrence where she was overpowered, remarkably no injury, either external or internal was noted during her medical examination, though that was conducted promptly, the next day.

16. Third, it has been submitted, the statement of the victim was recorded with delay. Clearly, she was tutored and prepared by her family to make that statement to take revenge from the appellant. Thus, her statement came to be recorded after 12 days.

17. Fourth, it has been stated, even as to the time of occurrence, there is discrepancy inasmuch as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim 'M' indicated that the occurrence took place at 3 a.m. whereas later she modified that statement and materially altered it by stating that the occurrence took place at 3 p.m.

18. Fifth, it has been submitted, though the prosecution claimed that two other witnesses had reached the place of occurrence including -5- the aunt (Chachi) of the victim 'M' namely 'N' and another person Balakram. That narration made in the FIR was not supported by the victim 'M' in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as she did not name Balakram. In any case those persons were not examined at the trial.

19. Further, it has been submitted, there is no forensic evidence of rape suffered by the victim 'M' inasmuch as there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory with respect to the clothing of the parties. The pathology report does not support the occurrence of rape inasmuch neither any live nor dead spermatozoa was detected in the vaginal swab drawn from 'M'.

20. Alternatively, it has been submitted, even if such conviction were to be upheld, the learned court below has erred in awarding maximum sentence i.e. life imprisonment to the appellant. Against that sentence awarded, the appellant has remained confined for 10 years and 25 days (actual). He was released on bail by this Court (in this appeal) on 03.02.2023.

21. On such submission advanced, on the last date, we required the learned A.G.A. to produce the Custody Certificate of the appellant. Today, the Custody Certificate of the appellant has been produced. It discloses, he has remained confined for 10 years and 25 days (actual). That Custody Certificate has been marked as 'X' and retained on record.

22. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. would submit, present is a case of penetrative sexual assault. Independent witnesses are hard to come by in such cases. Also, the testimony of a rape survivor stands on a higher pedestal as that of an injured witness. Insofar as no material discrepancy or improvement was offered by 'M' in her testimony and insofar as that deposition made by 'M' is wholly consistent to the FIR allegation in material parts, and further -6- inasmuch as the FIR itself was lodged promptly i.e. the next day itself, no interference is warranted on minor inconsistencies and deficiencies (if at all), pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant. As to sentence, it has been further submitted that the occurrence being of rape on a minor girl, the award of maximum sentence may not be interfered with.

23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, on the issue of conviction, we find, in the first place, the FIR was lodged within 24 hours of the occurrence. In that regard, 'M' (P.W.-2) during her examination-in-chief proved that the informant side had tried to lodge the FIR in the evening of

02.02.2013 itself, however, it remains a fact that such FIR was not lodged in the evening of 02.02.2013 but it was lodged on

03.02.2013 at about 4:10 P.M. The socio-economic profile of the parties (informant side) is that of simple villagers. It was further explained by 'M' (P.W.-2), during her cross-examination that she was shaken up by the occurrence, to the point, she had taken ill in the evening of 02.02.2013. Also, that part of her deposition further reveals that there was some discussion in the family whether to report the matter to the police or not. In the entirety of those facts, proven at the trial, it does not appear that there was any extra ordinary delay in the FIR being lodged as may itself create a reasonable doubt in the truthfulness or completeness of the prosecution story.

24. In the first place, as to the delay in lodging the FIR that too in rape cases, the law is clear. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Narayan (1992) 3 SCC 615, in the context of delay of two days in lodging the FIR, it was noticed by the Supreme Court that in cases of sexual assault, amongst other, a woman and her relatives have to struggle with several situations before they may approach the -7- police. In that it was observed as below : “6. … True it is that the complaint was lodged two days later but as stated earlier Indian society being what it is the victims of such a crime ~ ordinarily consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police since it involves the question of morality and chastity of a married woman. A woman and her relatives have to struggle with several situations before deciding to approach the police, more so when the culprit happens to be related. In such cases, therefore, the delay is understandable and hence merely on that account the prosecution version cannot be doubted.”

25. Then, according to the FIR, the appellant caused the occurrence during day hours. Though the time first disclosed by 'R' (P.W.-1), is not with reference to 'A.M.' or 'P.M.', at the same time, the first information report clearly disclosed that the occurrence was caused “kareeb 3 baje din”. Thus clearly, it was a day time occurrence reported by P.W.-1. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim 'M' (P.W.-2) described the time “subah teen baje”. That was not a material error in the description of the time of the occurrence by P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 (in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.). In any case, the same was wholly explained by the victim 'M' (P.W.-2) during her examination-in- chief. Then, 'R' (P.W.-1) consistently described the time as 3. That may not refer to 3 a.m. on 02.02.2013. To that extent, we find no material improvement or alteration or inconsistency in the evidence led by the prosecution.

26. Insofar as the occurrence is concerned, a wholly consistent account emerged during the trial wherein the victim 'M' (P.W.-2) narrated that she had gone to the agricultural field to attend to the call of nature where the appellant assaulted her, there. He first overpowered her; threw her to the ground and thereafter committed rape on her. Upon her crying for help, others reached the place.

27. The fact that the independent witnesses were not relied or examined by the prosecution, is not a principle in law that may lead -8- to a reasonable doubt. Nor it may be enforced by way of a rule of prudence in every case, by Courts. First, it has to be examined if the testimony of the rape survivor inspires confidence; is credible and trustworthy. Here, as noticed above, the deposition of 'M' P.W.-2 does not admit of any doubt. She was subjected to extensive cross- examination on behalf of the appellant. Without fail and without any material improvement or inconsistency emerging, she maintained that she had suffered the occurrence but no internal or external injury was received by her. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had specified that she did not suffer from any bleeding in the occurrence. Merely because such injury may not have been suffered by the victim 'M' (P.W.-2), no reasonable doubt may arise as to the trustworthiness and truthfulness of her testimony. It may not be forgotten that the victim consistently narrated that she suffered the occurrence in an agricultural field where mustard crop was standing. By very nature of that place of occurrence described, no hard object or vegetation may be perceived to exist as may give rise to a presumption that injury would necessarily have been suffered by the victim at such a place of occurrence. In any case, during the cross-examination availed by the appellant, no doubt emerged as may allow the Court to entertain a possibility that if the occurrence had taken place in the manner described by the prosecution, external or internal injury would be a necessary concomitant of that occurrence.

28. It is not the law that a rape victim would suffer physical injury, either external or internal, by way of natural or necessary effect arising from sufferance of rape. In Rafiq v. State of U.P., (1980) 4 SCC 262 the Supreme Court observed as below :