Holding

The conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC stands as the victim’s testimony is reliable and the absence of injuries does not indicate consent.

Summary

The appellant, Rajinder (Raju), was convicted under IPC sections 366 and 376 for forcibly kidnapping and raping an 18‑year‑old girl after misrepresenting that he would take her to a doctor. The girl testified that he dragged her to a secluded spot, gagged her, untied her clothing and committed sexual intercourse, causing pain and bleeding. The appellant argued that the act was consensual, citing the victim’s age, lack of injuries and alleged inconsistencies in her statements. The Supreme Court held that the victim’s testimony was clear, consistent and credible; the absence of injuries does not infer consent, and corroborative evidence is not mandatory in rape cases. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial and High Court judgments, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the sexual intercourse was committed with the consent of the prosecutrix.
Whether the victim’s testimony, in the absence of corroborative medical evidence or injuries, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under IPC sections 366 and 376.
Whether contradictions in the victim’s statements render her evidence unreliable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 366, s. 376

Subjects

rapeconsentsexual assaultvictim testimonycorroborationIPC 376IPC 366criminal lawevidence of victimabsence of injuries

Judgment

(2009] 10 S.C.R. 248

A RAJINDER @ RAJU ...
v. .r
STATE OF H.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 2003)

JULY 7, 2009
B
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860 - ss.366 and 376 - Conviction under •
- Challenge to, on ground that the accused committed sexual
c intercourse with consent of the prosecutrix - Held: On facts,
not tenable - The prosecutrix in her deposition was
categorical, clear and uneqwvocal that the accused
committed forcible sexual intercourse with her - Both Trial
court and High Court accepted her evidence - No justifiable
D reason to take a different view - In facts and circumstances
of the case. absence of injuries on person of prosecutrix does
not lead to an inference that she consented for sexual
intercourse with the accused - The young girl became victim
of lust of the accused who was more than double her age and
E yielded to sexual intercourse against her will - Evidence - Of
victim of sexual assault - Crime against Women - Rape.

It was alleged by the prosecutrix that she was
misrepresented by the accused-~ppellant that he would
show her to his cousin (a doctor) as she was suffering
F from some throat pain and she accompanied him but the
-4

-
accused took her to other places and when it became
dark, took her to a lonely place and committed forcible
sexual intercourse with her. At the relevant time, the
prosecutrix was 18 years of age. The trial court convicted
.G the appellant under ss.366 and 376 IPC and sentenced
him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The J
conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.

In appeal to this Court, the conviction was
H 248
RAJ INOE~ @ RAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 249

challenged on the ground that the act of sexual A

-
, intercourse was committed with consent of the
prosecutrix.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1.1. The prosecutrix in her deposition has B
been categorical, clear and unequivocal that the accused-
appellant committed forcible sex4al intercourse with her.
Though in her cross examinatiqn, she stated that the
accused had threatened her with a dagger when she
refused to go with him and this aspect was neither stated C
in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in the FIR
but this contradiction does not make her evidence
unreliable. The trial court as well as High Court accepted
her evidence. There is no justifi~ble reason to take a
different view.[Paras 9 and 1O] [255-A, C, D] D

1.2. The circumstances 01' the case neither
individually nor collectively lead to any plausible
inference that the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix
by the accused was done with h~r tacit consent. [Para E
11) [255-E]

1.3. In the context of Indian Culture, a woman - victim
of sexual aggression - would rather suffer silently than
to falsely implic,ate somebody. Any st~tement of rape is
an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and F
until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame
anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the
evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep
in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her
honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape G
on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration
of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. But for
high improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction
in the case of sex crime may be based on the sole
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A testimony of the prosecutrix. [Para 21] [262-G-H; 263-A]
"
1.4. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative .:..
component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor
the absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim
can be construed as evidence of consent. Insofar as the
B
present case is concerned, the circumstances are neither
sufficient nor do they justify discarding the evidence of
the prosecutrix. There is nothing on record that creates
r..
any doubt/disbelief or a suspicion about the evidence of
the prosecutrix. In a case, such as this, where the
c prosecutrix was misrepresented by the accused that he
would show her to his cousin (a doctor) as she was
suffering from some throat pain and she accompanied
him but the accused took her to other places and when
it became dark, took her to a lonely place and committed
D sexual intercourse, the prosecutrix was not expected to
put any resistance lest her lifo would have been in danger. •
In the facts and circumstances, the absence of injuries
on the person of the prosecutrix does not lead to an
inference that she consented for sexual intercourse with
E the accused. The young girl became victim of lust of the
accused who was more than double her age and yielded
to sexual intercourse against her will. In all, the judgment
of the High Court affirming the judgement of the trial

F
court convicting the accused under Sections 366 and 376
IPC does not suffer from any legal flaw. ThE! sentence
awarded to the appellant does not call for any
~

-
interference by this Court. [Paras 21 and 22] [263-B-F]

State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others, (1996) 2
SCC 384and State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30,
G
relied on.

Pratap Misra and Ors. vs. State of Orissa (1977) 3 SCC
41; Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. (2006) 10 SCC 92 and Narayan alias Naran vs. State
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A 18 years of age, was staying with her parents in village Kothi,
district Bilaspur, (H.P.). The accused, Rajinder@Raju, resident
of village Duhak, district Bilaspur, had taken contract for laying
G. I.. Pipelines in village Kothi near the residence of the
prosecutrix. In that connection, he used to store his material in
B the house of prosecutrix' parer.;s. On January 16, 1996,
prosecutrix had some throat pain. When the accused came to
the house of the prosecutrix and came to know that the
prosecutrix has been suffering from throat pain, he suggested
to the mother of the prosecutrix that his cousin at Ghumarwin
c was a doctor and if permitted, he could show the prosecutrix
to his cousin. The mother of the prosecutrix agreed. The
accused took the prosecutrix on his scooter at about 3.00 P.M.
Instead of taking the prosecutrix to Ghumarwin, he took her to •
Jablu stating that he had to collect the rent from his tenants.
From Jablu, the accused took prosecutrix to Berthin. The
0
accused reached Berthin at about 8.00 - 8.30 P .M. alongwith
the prosecutrix. At Berthin, the accused bought some sweets
and told the prosecutrix that he would take her to his house as
it was dark. The accused instead of taking her to his house,
took the scooter to some kachha road and made her to get
E down from the scooter. After spreading his pattu on the ground
and gagging the prosecutrix mouth made her lie down; untied
her salwar and committed the sexual intercourse with her
forcibly. The accused then left her leaving behind his pattu and
torch. After the accused had left, the prosecutrix saw some light
F from a house down the road. She walked upto that house and
told the lady, Smt. Simla Devi, (PW-2) residing there, of the
incident. The prosecutrix stayed overnight in the house of PW-
2. PW-2 told the whole incident to her husband (PW-3). In the
morning PW-3 called villagers; the statement of prosecutrix was
G recorded by one of the villagers viz., Roop Singh (PW-4). The
FIR was then registered at the Ghumarwin Police Station. The
prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined. The
Investigating Officer took the apparel of the prosecutrix in his
possession and the same was sent for chemical analysis
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

4
A 7. Mr. Ashok Mehta, the learned Counsel for the accused
did not dispute before us that the accused had sexual ..
intercourse with the prosecutrix at the time and place of
occurrence. The thrust of his contention was that the accused
did not commit the alleged act forcibly; rather such act was
B committed by the accused with the "onsent and free will of the
prosecutrix. The aforesaid contention was argued before the
High Court as well and the following circumstances were
\.
pressed into service viz., that the prosecutrix at the relevant time
was 18 years of age and thus capable of consenting to the act
c of sex; that the absence of injury/injuries on the person of the
prosecutrix is suggestive of her consent which is further fortified
by the fact that the act of sex is said to have been done after
the accused had laid the pattu on the ground and that the
prosecutrix accompanied the accused voluntarily from the very
D
beginning; and that the aspect of the accused having threatened
the prosecutrix at the point of dagger is palpably false as this
•
does not find mention in the FIR.

8. Since the act of sexual intercourse by the accused on
the prosecutrix is admitted, we do not deem it necessary to
E consider the medical evidence at great length. Suffice it to say
that Dr. Savita (PW-13) examined the prosecutrix on January1 .
18, 1996. At that time her clothes were found soiled with blood.
PW-13 opined that sexual intercourse was committed with the •
prosecutrix within 48 hours of her examination. She also
F conducted the vaginal test to ascertain the presence of
spermatozoa. According to PW-13, the prosecutrix was not
habitual to sexual intercourse and, in her opinion, the prosecutrix
was sexually assaulted for the first time before she examined
her. She was not in a position to opine whether the sexual act
G was with consent of the prosecutrix or it was committed forcibly.
In the circumstances, it admits of no doubt that the accused had ·~

sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the date and place
of occurrence. The core area of debate is whether such act was
committed with the consent of the prosecutrix or not.
H
RAJINDER @ RAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 255
[R.M. LODHA, J.]

.> 9. The prosecutrix in her deposition has been categorical, A
clear and unequivocal that the accused committed forcible
sexual intercourse with her. She testified:

"While•going, the accused stopped the scooter at a lonely
place on the road and thereafter he dragged me by holding
B
rne from my arm at some distance from the road and
gagged rny mouth and after placing 'pattu' on the ground,
)
he untied my salwar and committed the sexual intercourse
with me. I had felt a pain in my private part and the blood
started oozing."
c
10. It is true that in her cross examination she stated that
the accused had threatened her with a dagger before Jablu
when she refused to go with him and this aspect was neither
stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor in the
FIR but does this contradiction make her evidence unreliable. D
• We do not think so. The trial court as well as High Court has
accepted her evidence. We find no justifiable reason to take a
different view.

11. The circumstances which have been pointed out by the E
learned counsel neither individually nor collectively lead to any
plausible inference that the sexual intercourse with the
prosecutrix by !he accused was done with her tacit consent.
,;
12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon few
decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Pratap Misra and Ors. vs. F
State of Orissa 2 , (2) Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe vs. State of
Maharashtra and Anr. 3 ,(3) Narayan alias Naran vs. State of
Rajasthan 4 and (4) Radhu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 5 •

13. That the accused is not bound by his pleading and that G

., 2. (19770 3 sec 41.
3. (2006) 10 sec 92.
4. (2007) 6 sec 6.!15.
. 5. (2007) 12 sec 57 H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A it is open to him to prove his defence even from the admissions
made by the prosecution witness or the circumstances proved
in the case admits of no doubt. However, so far as decision in
the case of Pratap Misra is concerned, this Court on
consideration of the evidence let therein held that the appellants
8 had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her tacit consent
and the connivance of her husband. This Court held that there
was no material at all to prove the allegation of rape. Even the
medical evidence therein did not support the prosecution case.
We are afraid the decision of this Court in Pratap Misra turned
c on its own facts and is of no help to the appellant herein.
14. In Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe, this Court while
reiterating that in a rape case, the accused could be convicted
on the sole testimony of prosecutrix if it is capable of inspiring
the confidence in the mind of the Court, put a word of caution
D that the Court should be extremely careful while accepting the .
testimony when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to
have happened. This is what has been stated:

"9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be
E convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is
capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If
the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any
medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances
are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the •

F prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence
of the prosecutrix. The courts shall be extremely careful in
accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the
entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen."

15. It is pertinent to notice that in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe,
G this Court found that the prosecution evidence suffered from
many contradictions and the whole incident seemed to be i'
highly improbable. It is true that in Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe,
this Court observed that the absence of injuries on the body of
the prosecutrix improbabilise the prosecution version but the
H
RAJINDER @ RAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 257
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
aforesaid observation has to be understood in the context of A
the insufficiency of evidence even to establish sexual
intercourse. This is what this Court said:

"10. In the present case there were so many persons in
the clinic and it is highly improbable that the appellant B
would have made a sexual assault on the patient who
came for examination when large number of persons were
,) present in the near vicinity. It is also highly improbable that
the prosecutrix could not make any noise or get out of the
room without being assaulted by the doctor as she was
an able-bodied person of 20 years of age with ordinary
c
physique."

The decision in Sadashiav Ramrao Hadbe does not help
the accused at all.
D
16. In the Case of Narayan, it was held by this Court that
the evidence of prosecutrix was full of contradictions. In the
back-drop of the allegations made in the FIR that the accused
committed rape with prosecutrix thrice, this Court held that
absence of injuries either on her body or private parts ruled out
E
the prosecution case of forcible sexual intercourse. Suffice it
to say that the case of Narayan fumed on its own facts. Insofar
as legal position is concerned, this Court reiterated that
¥
evidence of prosecutrix can alone sustain conviction of the
accused.
F
17. This Court in Radhu considered the matter thus:

"12. Dr. Vandana (PW 8) stated that on examination of
Sumanbai, she found that her menstrual cycle had not
started and pubic hair had not developed, and that her G
hymen was ruptured but the rupture was old. She stated
~ that there were no injuries on her private parts and she
could not give any opinion as to whether any rape had been
committed. These were also recorded in the examination
report (Ext. P-8). She, however, referred to an abrasion on H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 10 S.C.R.

A the left elbow and a small abrasion on the arm and a
contusion on the right leg of Sumanbai. She further stated
that she prepared two vaginal swabs for examination and
handed it over along with the petticoat of Sumanbai to the
police constable, for being sent for examination. But no
B evidence is placed about the results of the examination of
the vaginal swabs and petticoat. Thus, the medical
evidence does not corroborate the case of sexual
intercourse or rape.

13. We are thus left with the sole testimony of the
c prosecutrix and the medical evidence that Sumanbai had
an abrasion on the left elbow, an abrasion on her arm and
a contusion on her leg. But these marks of injuries, by
themselves, are not sufficient to establish rape, wrongful
confinement or hurt, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is
D found to be not trustworthy and there is no corroboration.

14. Lalithabai says that when Sumanbai did not return, she
enquired with Gyarsibai. Sumanbai also says that she used
to often visit the house of Gyarsibai. She says that Radhu's
E parents are kaka and baba of her mothE:r and Radhu was
her maternal uncle. The families were closely related and
their relationship was cordial. In the circumstances, the
case of the prosecution that Gyarsibai would have invited •
Sumanbai to her house to abet her son Radhu to rape
F Sumanbai and that Gyarsibai was present in the small
house during the entire night when the rape was
committed, appears to be highly improbable in the light of
the evidence and circumstances.

15. The FIR states that one Dinesh was sent by Lalithabai
G to fetch her husband. Lalithabai and Mangilal have stated
that they did not know anyone by the name Dinesh.
Sumanbai stated in her evidence that on 29-1-1991, as
her father was away, her brother-in-law went to bring back
her father, that the name of her brother-in-law is Ramesh,
H but the SHO wrongly wrote his name as "Dinesh". But none
RAJINDER @ RAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 259
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
else mentioned about such a mistake. Neither Ramesh nor A
Dinesh was examined.

16. The evidence of the prosecutrix wh·en read as a whole,
is full of discrepancies and does not inspire confidence.
The gaps in the evidence, the several discrepancies in the B
evidence and other circumstances make it highly
improbable that such an incident ever took place. The
_,)
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
defence had failed to prove that Mangilal, father of the
prosecutrix was indebted to Radhu's father Nathu and
consequently, defence of false implication of the accused C
should be rejected. Attention was invited to the denial by
the mother and father of the prosecutrix of the suggestion
made on behalf of the defence that Sumanbai's father
Mangilal was indebted to Radhu's father Nathu and
because Nathu was demanding money they had made the D
false charge of rape to avoid repayment. The fact t~at the
defence had failed to prove the indebtedness of Mangilal
or any motive for false implication does not have much
relevance as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charges. We are satisfied that the evidence does not E
warrant a finding of guilt at all, and the trial court and the_
High Court erred in returning a finding of guilt."
~ . 18. Again in the case of Radhu, the evidence of
prosecutrix was found full of discrepancies and not worthy of F
credence. The medical evidence also did not corroborate the
case of sexual intercourse or rape. In Radhu this Court
reiterated the legal position thus:

"6. It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of
rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the G
prosecµtrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to
get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the
prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor
discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual
intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even
if it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record
requires drawing of ::;n inference that there was consent
or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary.
s Even 1f there is consent, the act will still be a ·'rape", if the
girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that
absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will
not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed as
evidence of consent."
c It has, thus, been held in Radhu that absence of injuries
on the private partr. of the victim cannot be construed as
evidence of consent.

19. In State of Rajasthan vs. N.K 6, this Court held thus:
D
"19. For the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 of
the Indian Penal Code, the sexual intercourse should have
been against the will of the woman or without her consent.
Consent is immaterial in certain circumstances covered by
clauses thirdly to sixthly, the last one being when the
E
woman is under 16 years of age. Based on these
provisions, an argument is usually advanced on behalf of
the accused charged with rape that the absence of proof
of want of consent where the prosecutrix is not under 16 ......
years of age takes the assault out of the purview of Section
F 375 of the Indian Penal Code. Certainly consent is no
'
defence if the victim has been proved to be under 16 years
of age. If she be of 16 years of age or above, her consent
cannot be presumed; an inference as to consent can be
drawn if only based on evidence or probabiiities of the
G case. The victim of rape stating on oath that she was
forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse or that the act was
done without her consent, has to be believed and accepted
like any other testimony unless there is material available

H 6. (20ooi s sec 30.
RAjlNDER @ RAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 261
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
.>- to draw an inference as to h~r consent or else the A
testimony of prosecutrix is such as would be inherently
improbable."

20. This Court, in the case of Gurmit Singh1, made the
following weighty observations in respect of evidence of a victim
B
of sexual assault:

"The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive
-· to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman
would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating
statement against her honour such as is involved in the c
commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual
molestation, supposed considerations which have no
material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or
even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix
... should not, unless the discrepancies are such .which are D
of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable
prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females
and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression
are
E
factors which the courts shoul9 not overtook. The testimony
of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are
compelling reasons which necessitate looking for
~--.
corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no
difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault
alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires F
confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking
corroboration of her statement before relying upon the
same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult
to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or. a woman who
complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with G
... doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating
the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance
of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since
she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the
charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.

A to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base
conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual
assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an
injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just
as a witness 'who has sustained some injury in the·
B occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is
considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is
least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim
of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of •.
corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is
not an imperative component of judicial credence in every
c case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial
reliance on the te::.timony of the prosecutrix is not a
requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given
circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or
D
a girl subjected to sexual assault 1s not an accomplice to
the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is
..
improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a
certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an
accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set
of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not
E dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule
of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial

F
tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a
fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken
as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime
strikes the judicial mind as probable."
·-
21. In the context of Indian Culture, a woman - victim of
sexual aggression - would rather suffer silently than to falsely
implicate somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely
G humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of
sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While >
appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must
always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put
her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on
H her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her
RAJINDER @ RAJU v. STATE OF H.P. 263
[R.M. LODHA, J.]

>· testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. But for high A

.... improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction in the case
of sex crime may be based on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix. lthas been rightly said that corroborative evidence
is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every
case of rape nor the absence of injuries on the private parts of B
the victim can be construed as evidence of consent. Insofar as
the present case is concerned, the circumstances referred to
and pointed out by the learned counsel are neither sufficient nor
do they justify discarding the evidence of the prosecutrix. There
is nothing on record that creates any doubt/disbelief or a
suspicion about the evidence of the prosecutrix, 11n a case, such
c
~ ..... as this, where the prosecutrix was misrepresented by the
.....,,l accused that he would show her to his cousin (a doctor) as she
was suffering from some throat pain and she accompanied him
but the accused took her to other places and when it became
... dark, took her to a lonely place and committed sexual
D
intercourse, the prosecutrix was not expected to put any
resistance lest her life would have been in danger. In the facts
and circumstances, the absence of injuries on the person of the
prosecutrix does not lead to an inference that she consented
for sexwal intercourse with the accused. The young girl became E
victim of lust of the accused who was more than double her age
and yielded to sexual intercourse against her will.

22. In all, we find that the judgment of the High Court
affirming the judgement of the trial court convicting the accused F
under Sections 366 and 376 IPC does not suffer from any legal
flaw. The sentence awarded to the appellant does not call for
any interference by this Court. The appeal having no merit must
fail and is dismissed. The appellant will surrender to his bail
bond and will be taken ipto custody to serve out the sentence G
as awarded.
~ .... 1
8.8.B. Appeal dismissed.