JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is an appeal by the State against an order dated 30-11-1961 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput, acquitting the accused-Respondent of a charge u/s 376, Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1961. 2. Sunadei Bhumiani (p.w. 1) a resident of Dalpur in the district of Koraput went to the house of her husband's brother at Baligadu on 11-10-1960. Baligadu is at a distance of three miles from Dalpur. After taking some paddy she was returning to her home in the afternoon of that day and at about 3 p.m. when she reached the field of Khagapati Kendu (p.w. 8), the accused suddenly appeared and caught hold of her shoulders as a result of which she fell down and the accused thereupon committed rape on her in spite of her protest. In course of the struggle, she caught hold of the shirt of the accused and tore out a portion of it, M.O. III/1 and also bit him with her teeth on his hand, Some of the glass bangles that she was wearing, were also broken to pieces and she also received some injuries on her hands and knees in course of the struggle. Some of the Ragi plants in the field where the occurrence took place, were also damaged. 3. Immediately after the occurrence, she went to report this matter to the village Naik, her husband being absent from the village on that day. The village Naik being absent, she informed his son, Dombaru Naik (p.w. 2) and showed him the torn shirt, M.O. III/1 and also her broken glass bangles. A panchayati was proposed to be held on the following day, but on that day the accused was found absent. The meeting of the Punches was therefore postponed to 13-10-1960. At the meeting which took place on 13-10-1960, the accused denied all allegations before the Punches and thereafter P.W. 1 was asked to lodge information before the police. Accordingly she lodged F.I.R. on 14-10-1960 when she also produced before the police M.O. III/1 which was seized under seizure list, ext. 3. In course of investigation the police seized a Lungi from the house of the accused, containing III arks like blood under seizure list, ext. Accordingly she lodged F.I.R. on 14-10-1960 when she also produced before the police M.O. III/1 which was seized under seizure list, ext. 3. In course of investigation the police seized a Lungi from the house of the accused, containing III arks like blood under seizure list, ext. 5, and a Saree containing marks of semen, and some rags containing marks of blood were seized from the house of the complainant under seizure list ext. 6, and also some broken glass bangles and Rag} from the place of occurrence. 4. Both P.W. 1 and the accused were medically examined, the former by a lady doctor, P.W. 6 and the latter by P.W. 10, the Assistant Surgeon of the Government Hospital at Jeypore. The lady doctor found a number of minor injuries on the person of P.W. 1 which by then were one week old, and it was not possible for her to give any opinion as to commission of rape particularly when the victim is a mother of six children. She however, opined that the injuries could be caused during a struggle if the victim falls on the ground. P.W. 10 found some injuries on the penis of the accused and a few abrasions on his right hand. After investigation, the accused was sent up for trial u/s 376, Indian Penal Code, to the Court of Sessions. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge however found the evidence to be insufficient and acquitted the Respondent and it is against this order of acquittal the State has preferred this appeal. 5. There is no other eye-witness to the occurrence, except the victim herself. She has given a cogent story as to how while she was returning, the accused attacked her and committed rape on her in spite of her protest and how she received some injuries and inflicted some with her teeth on the accused. From the evidence of the lady doctor, it appears that P.W. 1 had in fact a number of injuries on different parts of her body including her arm, knees and wrist joint which could possibly be caused if the victim falls down on the ground. In cases of this nature it is always safe and desirable to insist upon some corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix though the nature and extent of such corroboration depend upon the facts of each case. In cases of this nature it is always safe and desirable to insist upon some corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix though the nature and extent of such corroboration depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, immediately after the occurrence P.W. 1 went and reported the matter to the village Naik's son, P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has stated that while P.W. 1 was narrating the occurrence to him, he had noticed some marks of injury on her hand, knee and the Saree M.O.I that she was wearing was wet and partly covered with mud and the complainant also showed him some broken glass bangles and the torn shirt. To the same effect is the evidence of p.ws. 3 and 9 who acted as Punches in the meeting. The members of the Punch went to the place of occurrence and found some broken pieces of glass bangles lying there on the spot similar to the bangles put on by the victim. 6. The accused in his examination u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, admitted that he had met the complainant on 11-10-1960 and that the complainant had torn away a portion of his shirt, M.O. III/1, but according to him, it was in a different context. He alleged that he had been to the house of P.W. 1 for bringing liquor and took some drinks there and there was some quarrel between hip and P.W. 1 regarding payment of price when the complainant became furious and tore away a portion of his shirt. No evidence was adduced to support this plea of the accused. Nothing has beep elicited from the prosecution witnesses to support the statement of the accused except a mere suggestion to P.W. 1 which was met with a denial. According to the accused on the day of occurrence while coming from the house of P.W. 1 he fell down somewhere due to intoxication and was unable to say where he fell down. This of course was stated by him in answer to a question u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Ragi crops at the place of occurrence were found damaged and some broken pieces of glass bangles were also found by the police on pointing out by P.W. 1. This of course was stated by him in answer to a question u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Ragi crops at the place of occurrence were found damaged and some broken pieces of glass bangles were also found by the police on pointing out by P.W. 1. The accused was asked to explain the existence of some injury on his penis, he explained it by saying that it was on account of some insect biting when cutting paddy. The injury on his penis by insect biting was not at all suggested to the doctor and it was said for the first time in his examination before the Sessions Court. Regarding the stains of semen found on his Lungi, of course he has given a reasonable explanation that it might have been due to his sex connection with his wife. 7. As already discussed the evidence of P.W. 1 has received substantial corroboration from the statements made by p.ws. 2, 3 and 9. It was contended by Mr. Acharya, learned Counsel for the Respondent that it is not improbable that the complain a with a view to rope in the Respondent, might have made false accusations and created evidence. But there is nothing in record to show as to why the complainant would file a false case against the accused at the stake of her reputation before the Court and the public and expose herself to some degree of dishonour. According to Mr. Acharya, once the source is found to be tainted, any subsequent evidence flowing from that source cannot be taken as corroboration of the source itself, and in that view of the matter the mere reporting of P.W. 1 to the village Naik or other villagers or the production of the bangles etc. should not be taken by way of corroboration. This however, is fallacious. Firstly, the evidence of P.W. 1 is not tainted in any sense. It has not been proved that she was inimical to the accused or was otherwise interested in filing a false case. There is nothing to challenge the veracity of her evidence. Secondly, it cannot be doubted that the statement made by P.W. 1 to p.ws. 2, 3 and 9 almost immediately after the occurrence is legally admissible as corroborative evidence. It has not been proved that she was inimical to the accused or was otherwise interested in filing a false case. There is nothing to challenge the veracity of her evidence. Secondly, it cannot be doubted that the statement made by P.W. 1 to p.ws. 2, 3 and 9 almost immediately after the occurrence is legally admissible as corroborative evidence. It has also to be borne in mind that the complainant gave such information before she had any chance of being tutored. What weight is to be given to such evidence depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It has also to be borne in mind that corroboration is not essential before a conviction can be recorded. Though the Courts insist on such corroboration by way of prudence, may yet dispense with the same in appropriate cases. Assuming, however, we ignore that part of the evidence, there are still other circumstances from which independent corroboration is also available. The place of occurrence in the Ragi field was found in a damaged and ruffled condition as is clear from the evidence of P.W. 11, the A.S.I. and p.ws. 2. 3 and 8, the owner of the field. Some broken bangles similar to those worn by P.W. 1 were also found at the place of occurrence. The corresponding injury on the penis of the accused lends some support also to the story of the complainant. The torn portion of the accused's shirt found admittedly in the possession of the complainant and produced at the earliest opportunity before the villagers and the police goes a great way to support the prosecution version. The explanation offered by the accused on this aspect of the evidence is not found to be satisfactory. According to Mr. Acharya, the evidence on the seizure of a number of broken glasses is discrepant and should be rejected, but as rightly pointed out by Mr. Rath, the learned Standing Counsel for the State that the discrepancy as pointed out in the evidence is not of such nature as to throw out the entire case. It was contended that the field being a dry place, the back side of the victim was expected to have some injuries and absence of such injuries falsifies the prosecution story. Rath, the learned Standing Counsel for the State that the discrepancy as pointed out in the evidence is not of such nature as to throw out the entire case. It was contended that the field being a dry place, the back side of the victim was expected to have some injuries and absence of such injuries falsifies the prosecution story. But it has to be remembered that the occurrence took place while crops were still standing on the field and there was no possibility of the back of P.W. 1 coming in direct contact with the dry land. 8. I am aware of the considerations that should weigh with a Court in a case of an appeal against an order of acquittal. I am not satisfied with the reasoning adopted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in acquitting the Respondent. I do not think he approached the case from the correct standpoint. In my opinion, the prosecution has fully established the case against the accused of an offence u/s 376, Indian Penal Code. The order of acquittal therefore cannot stand and is set aside and the accused is convicted u/s 376, Indian Penal Code, but in view of the fact that more than two years have passed since the date of occurrence and the accused is fairly advanced in age a sentence of one year's R.I. will meet the end of justice. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of acquittal is set aside. The accused must now surrender to his bail-bonds to receive the sentence. Misra, J. 9. I agree. 10. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed