JUDGMENT T.K. Joseph, J. 1. This is an appeal by an accused who was convicted under S.376 and 377, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under S.377 I. P. C. and three years under S.376, the two sentences to run concurrently. 2. The case for the Prosecution may be stated : Padmini (PW 1) is a girl aged 8 years. She was living with her grandmother, PW 2 and PW 6, a daughter of PW 2. PW 5 is a neighbour and a distant relative of PW 2. The accused is a neighbour of these witnesses and his house is about 300 feet distant from that of PW 2. At about 10 A. M. on 28-9-1958 PW 2 gave two annas to PW 1 and asked her to purchase tapioca from the accused. She proceeded to the accused's house with a basket and the money and when she reached the accused's house, he was standing in his courtyard. He was alone in the house at that time. He took PW 1 to the kitchen and gave her some cold rice. PW 1 took the same, washed the plate and placed it in the kitchen. The accused had in the meanwhile closed the doors of the building including that of the kitchen. He sat on a door step and called the girl to come near him and when she came, he placed her on his lap and kissed her. Then he removed his cloth and placed his penis in her hand and asked her to handle it. He wanted to put the penis into her mouth and on her refusal he forced her mouth open with his fingers and introduced it into her mouth. When it touched her throat she closed her mouth. He then withdrew the organ from PW 1's mouth. Thereafter he placed the girl on the floor, removed her cloth and introduced his penis into her sexual organ against her will and thus committed rape. PW 1 attempted to cry and the accused then thrust her cloth into her mouth. After the accused completed the act he rose up and said that he would give her tapioca and that she should not tell anybody about the incident. She refused tapioca and went back to her house and lay down. PW 1 attempted to cry and the accused then thrust her cloth into her mouth. After the accused completed the act he rose up and said that he would give her tapioca and that she should not tell anybody about the incident. She refused tapioca and went back to her house and lay down. PW 2 gave her some rice gruel but after taking the same she again went and lay down. PW 1 did not actually tell PW 2 as to what had happened but as there was pain and swelling on her private parts, PW 2 applied hot fomentation the next day. The pain did not subside, and suspecting that the girl was suffering from a kind of swelling PW 2 took PW 1 on 30-9-1958 to the Government Hospital, Attingal. The medical officer directed the compounder to apply some ointment. This did not give any relief. PW 5 went to the house of PW 1 the next day, i. e., 1-9-1958, and asked her about her illness, when she told her what had happened at the accused's house. PW 2 also heard this and on 2-10-1958 PW 1 was again taken to the hospital and this time the Medical Officer was told what the trouble was. He told them that he could not do anything unless PW 1 was taken to him with a letter from the Police. PWs 1 and 2 then returned home and on the next day (i. e., 3-10-1958), they went to the police station at Attingal where PW I gave a statement (Ext. PW 1). The Sub Inspector of Police (PW 14) prepared the first information report (Ext. P14) and sent PW 1 to the Government Hospital at Chirayinkil so that she could be examined by the lady doctor (PW 3). She examined her the same day and issued a certificate (Ext. P3). In the meanwhile PW 14 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a mahazar (Ext. P5). PW 6 produced the cloth (M. O. 1) which PW 1 was alleged to have been wearing at the time of the occurrence. This was taken into custody and a mahazar (Ext. P6) was prepared regarding the same. The accused was arrested the same day at about 4 P. M. by PW 11. The Police examined his body and prepared a mahazar (Ext. P8). This was taken into custody and a mahazar (Ext. P6) was prepared regarding the same. The accused was arrested the same day at about 4 P. M. by PW 11. The Police examined his body and prepared a mahazar (Ext. P8). He was then sent to the medical officer (PW 4) for examination and the latter issued a certificate (Ext. P4) after examining him. After completing investigation a case was duly charged before the First Class Magistrate, Attingal, who committed the accused to stand his trial for offences under S.376 and 377, Indian Penal Code. He was accordingly tried by the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum, who convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. 3. The points for decision are whether the accused committed carnal intercourse with PW 1 against the order of nature and whether he committed rape on her. Before considering the evidence relating to the same, it may be stated that the defence of the accused was that the case was concocted against him at the instigation of one Raghavan Pillai with the connivance of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 6 who were on inimical terms with him. Raghavan Pillai's enmity was stated to be due to the fact that the accused worked against him when he stood as a candidate for election to the local Panchayat. 4. The evidence relating to the two offences may be considered together. PW 1 has deposed in terms of the prosecution case as stated earlier, narrating the whole story since the moment she left her house to buy tapioca from the accused. The learned Judge held that PW 1 being a child witness and also the prosecutrix, her evidence could be accepted only if the same was corroborated and that the evidence of PWs 2, 5 and 6 that PW 1 had given them the same version was sufficient corroboration. The broad terms in which the learned Judge has stated the proposition of law is not correct. What the Supreme Court has laid down in Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1952 SC 54 ) is that there is no rule of practice that there should be corroboration in every case but that the rule which requires corroboration is one of prudence which must be present to the mind of a Judge. What the Supreme Court has laid down in Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1952 SC 54 ) is that there is no rule of practice that there should be corroboration in every case but that the rule which requires corroboration is one of prudence which must be present to the mind of a Judge. It was also pointed out that the nature and extent of such evidence must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged, but that the following rules were clear : (i) It is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction, (ii) The independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it, by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the complainant that the accused committed the crime, (iii) The corroboration must come from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another, and (iv) The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime ; it is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime. That the rule regarding corroboration is only one of prudence and not a rule of practice has been affirmed by the Supreme Court again in Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1958 SC 143 ). In view of the two decisions referred to above it is unnecessary to refer to the other cases cited by the appellant's counsel on this point. 5. The question for decision is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution satisfies the above requirements. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of PWs 2, 5 and 6 was that PW 1 told them that the accused committed an unnatural offence followed by rape when she went to his house to purchase tapioca. 5. The question for decision is whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution satisfies the above requirements. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of PWs 2, 5 and 6 was that PW 1 told them that the accused committed an unnatural offence followed by rape when she went to his house to purchase tapioca. It was pointed out that though the alleged incidents took place on the 28th of August it was only on the 1st of September that PW 1 gave this version for the first time and that too as a result of persistent questioning by PW 5. It was also pointed out that there were several occasions when she should have come out with the story such as when PW 2 applied hot fomentation to the affected parts as well as when she was taken to the hospital on the 30th. Her narrative of the events to PW 5 was not by way of complaint but as a result of questioning. According to PW 1 the accused had asked her not to divulge what he had done and that was the reason for her silence. Whatever that be, the interval of three days must in the circumstances take this part of the evidence out of the scope of res gestae. If PW 1 had complained soon after her grandmother came home or at least some time that day, the fact that she complained would have been useful as evidence of her credibility. In the circumstances I am of opinion that the evidence of PWs 2,5 and 6 that PW 1 made such a statement is not admissible under S.8 or S.157 of the Evidence Act, as the alleged statement was not made "at or about the time the fact took place". It is therefore necessary to see whether there is other evidence corroborating the testimony of PW 1. 6. The medical evidence in the case is that PW 1 had sustained injury to her private parts. These according to the medical evidence are: (1) A bruised swelling and inflamation on the left labium majora with an ulcer of the size of an anna on the medical aspect of the labium majora, (2) Ulceration at the tip of the clitoris, and (3) Bruised inflamation on the medial aspect of the right labium minora. These according to the medical evidence are: (1) A bruised swelling and inflamation on the left labium majora with an ulcer of the size of an anna on the medical aspect of the labium majora, (2) Ulceration at the tip of the clitoris, and (3) Bruised inflamation on the medial aspect of the right labium minora. At the time she was examined by the medical officer (PW 3), i. e., at 1.30 P. M. on 3-9-1958, there was profuse purulent discharge in the affected parts. The hymen and posterior fourchette were intact. PW 3 stated in the wound certificate (Ext. P3) that the injuries might have been caused by an attempt to commit rape. She deposed that she gave the cause of the injuries as attempt to rape, since penetration was only vulval and not vaginal. In chief-examination PW 3 stated : "These injuries could have been caused by a forcible contact with penis. It must have been caused by rape". PW 3 was elaborately cross examined and she stated that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by contact with the finger nail while scratching but not the third injury. She ruled out the possibility of the discharge being due to leucorrhoea. To the question whether gonorrhaea may not produce such a discharge she answered in the affirmative. Another question put to her was whether there would not be profuse bleeding if the errected penis of a grown up man was pushed into the vagina. This was also answered in the affirmative. 7. It was argued on the basis of the medical evidence that the injuries noted by PW 3 need not necessarily be due to rape. The suggestion was that the injuries could have been caused by scratching, but PW 3 stated that of the three injuries noted in Ext. P3, the last one could not be caused by scratching with the finger nail. It was argued that though a smear of the discharge was taken by PW 3 for microscopic examination, the same did not disclose the presence of human spermatozoa. This does not help either the defence, because the smear was taken only five days after the alleged rape. PW 3 stated that the spermatozoa would not survive for more than 24 hours. This does not help either the defence, because the smear was taken only five days after the alleged rape. PW 3 stated that the spermatozoa would not survive for more than 24 hours. Another argument was that though the alleged rape was one committed by a grown up man on a young girl of 8 years there was no profuse bleeding. PW 3 said that there would be profuse bleeding in case of penetration into the vagina of a young girl but as there was no vaginal penetration in this case, the absence of profuse bleeding is of no importance. 8. The mere fact that the girl had injuries which could be caused by rape does not merely mean that she was either raped or that rape was committed by the accused, but as stated earlier, the medical evidence points to the conclusion that the cause of the injuries or at least one of the three injuries must have been rape. The question still remains whether rape was committed on the 28th of August 1958. Circumstances indicate that it must have been on that day. PW 1 was found lying down soon after her return from the unsuccessful trip to purchase tapioca. She complained of pain in the private parts and PW 2 applied hot fomentation, diagnosing the trouble as due to. She was taken to the hospital on 30th and this is sworn to by the medical officer (PW 4). He directed the compounder to apply some ointment at the affected part. It is clear from the evidence of PW 4 that he did not examine the girl that day when she was taken to him in the out patient department. It appears that he was guided in the diagnosis by what the grandmother told him. It is unfortunate that a careful examination was not made that day because PW 4 could easily have detected that the grandmother's diagnosis was wrong. However the fact remains that PW 1 was taken to the hospital that day and that she received some treatment. The fact that PW 1 complained of pain in her private parts soon after the alleged incident on 28th August and that the cause of pain was later found to be due to such injuries as could be attributed to rape shows that she must have been raped on the 28th. 9. The fact that PW 1 complained of pain in her private parts soon after the alleged incident on 28th August and that the cause of pain was later found to be due to such injuries as could be attributed to rape shows that she must have been raped on the 28th. 9. There is satisfactory evidence in the case to connect the accused with the attack on PW 1. PW 2 swears that she sent PW 1 to the accused's house to purchase tapioca that day. She admitted that the accused was not a trader in tapioca but she sent PW 1, as she knew that he was taking his crops that day. This is corroborated by the testimony of PW 7 and the evidence of the Sub Inspector of Police who prepared the scene mahazar (Ext. P5). It is noted in Ext. P5 that stems of tapioca recently uprooted were seen near the house. The garden also showed signs of recent uprooting of tapioca plants. PW 5 also recorded the fact that there were few tapioca tubers in the house and that a balance and weights were seen nearby. Ext. P5 is attested by the accused's daughter, DW 3. PW 9 deposed that at about 10 A. M. on the 28th he saw PW 1 standing in the courtyard of the accused with a basket and that he heard the accused asking her to come inside the house, saying that he would give tapioca. The learned Judge believed this witness, but I am not inclined to attach much weight to his testimony. He said he was carrying fuel along a lane about 100 feet away from the house of the accused and that when he passed the house again with fuel, he found the doors closed. His testimony appears somewhat artificial. He is one who lieves half-a-mile away and there is no particular reason why he should have noticed these details and heard the conversation between the accused and PW 1 that day. It is not as though he was actually passing through the accused's compound. 10. There is circumstantial evidence which I consider very important in proving the guilt of the accused. The earliest version given by PW 1 of the attack was on the 1st of September when PW 5 asked her about the cause of her illness. It is not as though he was actually passing through the accused's compound. 10. There is circumstantial evidence which I consider very important in proving the guilt of the accused. The earliest version given by PW 1 of the attack was on the 1st of September when PW 5 asked her about the cause of her illness. She said that the accused at first forced her mouth open and put his sexual organ inside her mouth and that when it touched her throat she closed her mouth and that the accused then withdrew the organ from her mouth. This is the version given by her to the Police and later in court. No doubt, PW 2 said that she did not hear PW 1 telling PW 5 of this part of the incident but this does not appear material in the circumstances. When PW 1 was examined at the trial she said that she bit the accused's organ when it was put into her mouth whereas the earlier version was that she closed her mouth tight,I do not think this is a material variation. The accused was arrested and produced before the medical officer (PW 4) on 3rd September 1958. PW 4 noticed a linear abrasion on the left and lower aspect of the retracted prepuce near the corona glandis ridge, half inch long and transversally situated. The injured area was red in colour and there was slight serious discharge over it. These are recorded in the certificate (Ext. P4) and sworn to by PW 4. It is noted in Ext. P4 that the injury might have been caused by contact with some hard substance. It is further noted in Ext. P4 that the glans penis was exposed, clean and not covered by the foreskin. PW 4 deposed that the injury noted in Ext. P4 would be caused if it came into contact with the edge of a tooth. The accused was not able to explain this injury when he was questioned under S.342. It is further noted in Ext. P4 that the glans penis was exposed, clean and not covered by the foreskin. PW 4 deposed that the injury noted in Ext. P4 would be caused if it came into contact with the edge of a tooth. The accused was not able to explain this injury when he was questioned under S.342. His case was that the Sub Inspector of Police was also present when he was examined by PW 4, that the latter at first did not notice any injury, that the Inspector then asked PW 4 to wash the part and examine again, that even after the part was sponged with a wet cloth there was no injury and that he then heard the Inspector telling the doctor something in English which he could not understand. I am unable to believe that the medical officer made a false entry in the certificate to oblige the Sub Inspector of Police. It appears that a suggestion was put forward in the court below that the Police may have hit his organ with a ruler before producing him for medical examination but he had no such case when he gave his statement, his plea being one of denial of the existence of such an injury. There is no reason to disbelieve PW 4 on this point. What PW 4 stated is corroborated by the testimony of PW 10 who deposed that he was present when the Inspector examined the body of the accused and prepared a mahazar, (Ext. P8) regarding this injury. PW 10 is one who come to the court which is adjacent to the police station. He says he saw this injury at that time. There is no reason to disbelieve him. According to PW 4 the injury was about three days old when he noticed it. The existence of this injury which the accused is unable to explain is a strong piece of evidence in support of the evidence given by PW 1, that she closed her mouth tight when the accused introduced his organ into her mouth. PW 1 could not have anticipated, when she stated to the Police about the earlier part of the incident relating to the introduction of the accused's sexual organ into her mouth, that there would be a corresponding injury on the accused's sexual organ. PW 1 could not have anticipated, when she stated to the Police about the earlier part of the incident relating to the introduction of the accused's sexual organ into her mouth, that there would be a corresponding injury on the accused's sexual organ. This in my opinion is sufficient to corroborate the version of PW 1 regarding the unnatural offence committed on her as well as rape which followed. According to PW 4 though the accused was 65 years old, he was capable of sexual union. 11. I must also refer to the accused's case that the case was concocted against him due to the instigation of one Raghavan Pillai against whom he worked at the time of the Panchayat election. There is no evidence to connect Raghavan Pillai with the charge. It cannot be denied that PW 1 had sustained injuries in her private parts and it is difficult to hold that learning this, Raghavan Pillai devised the idea of wreaking vengeance on the accused. Defence witnesses 1 and 2 who were examined to prove this suggestion as well as the alibi pleaded by the accused did not give convincing evidence and they were rightly disbelieved by the learned Judge. DW 3 is the accused's daughter who deposed that the accused was not in the house that day. She was present at the time the Sub Inspector of Police prepared the mahazar regarding the house and she attested it. Apart from the fact that she is a highly interested witness, her evidence appears somewhat artificial and I disbelieve her. It was also suggested in the cross examination of PWs 2, 5 and 6 that they were women of loose morals but I do think the evidence warrants the conclusion that they were persons who would come forward with such a story to oblige Raghavan Pillai. 12. On a consideration of the whole evidence, direct as well as circumstantial, I am inclined to agree with the learned Judge that notwithstanding the delay in making the complaint, the evidence is sufficient to connect the accused with both the offences. The conviction of the accused under S.376 and 377 is therefore confirmed. The sentence does not require modification in the circumstances, and I confirm the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The accused who is on bail will be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence.