JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Respondent Batakrishna Mahanto was tried u/s 376, Indian Penal Code for committing rape on Damani Dei (p.w. 1) and has been acquitted. Prosecution case is that she in the company of Puna Dei (p.w. 1) and Malli Dei (p.w. 3) were returning from the jungle after collecting Mahua flowers on 14-3-1963 at about noon. All of a sudden the accused caught hold of P.W. 1 and committed sexual intercourse with her at the paddy field of one Chotrai Mahanto. The girls shouted. Chilla Naik (p.w. 4) and Baikuntha Naik (p.w. 5) were returning with Bhars of fire wood from the forest. On seeing them, the accused fled away. He was, however, pursued and caught hold of by p.ws. 4 and 5. Gulu Mahanto (p.w. 7) was taking his bath and found the accused being caught hold of by p.ws. 4 and 5. On the direction of the headman of the village the accused was released. Subsequently a Punchayati was held and by the Punchanama (Ext. 1) dated 14-3-1963 matters were settled. On 16-3-1963 the accused lodged a Station Diary Entry (Ext. 7) making certain complaints of assault against P.W. 7 and others. On 18-3-1963, a Station Diary Entry (Ext. 4) was lodged for the prosecution with allegation of rape. 2. The defence is one of complete denial. The accused on the other hand pleads that on 14-3-1963 he had been to the tank to take his bath. At that time P.W. 5 and others assaulted him and he lodged the Station Diary Entry (Ext. 7) on 16-3-1963, a Station Diary Entry (Ext. 4) is a counter-blast to it and a false case has been lodged. 3. P.w. 1 is the victim. She gives a vivid description as to how her hands were tied and the accused committed rape on her injuring her vaginal canal and leaving nail marks on her left breast. She also sustained injuries on her back while she struggled to get out of the clutches of the accused. Her statement is fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor (p.w. 8) who found injuries on the vaginal canal and mail marks on the left breast and other injuries on the back of the body. Mr. She also sustained injuries on her back while she struggled to get out of the clutches of the accused. Her statement is fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor (p.w. 8) who found injuries on the vaginal canal and mail marks on the left breast and other injuries on the back of the body. Mr. Mohapatra placed some reliance on the Doctor?s evidence that the hymen tear looked like small granular tags of tissue and that a torn hymen shrinks after 8 to 10 days and looks like granular tag. The occurrence was on 14-3-1963 and that P.W. 1 was examined five days thereafter on 19-3-1963. Mr. Mohapatra therefore contended that the existence of granular tag negatived the prosecution story that the hymen was ruptured within 5 days. There is no force in this contention inasmuch as no question has been put to the Doctor that a torn hymen does not look like a granular tag before it shrinks. The medical evidence fully corroborates the version of P.W. 1. Law is well settled than in a case of rape, the prosecutor is not generally treated as an accomplice. Cases do arise in which the sexual intercourses done with consent; but after the matter is detected, the female partner resiles and takes the stand that it was done against her will. In cases of that nature, some corroborative evidence is necessary to accept the version of the prosecutrix whether she was an accomplice or not. But in this case, the positive stand of the accused is one of complete denial and that of the prosecutrix is that rape was committed on her against her will. In such a case, P.W. 1 cannot at all be treated as an accomplice. Corroboration is neither essential nor necessary if her statement can be otherwise accepted. Going through her evidence I am satisfied that she gives a truthful version. She is a married girl and had attained puberty within a year of the occurrence. Her remarriage had not taken place. It is difficult to imagine that such a girl would falsely implicate the accused by putting her chastity and reputation at stake even if there were some enmity between her father and the father of the accused. She is a married girl and had attained puberty within a year of the occurrence. Her remarriage had not taken place. It is difficult to imagine that such a girl would falsely implicate the accused by putting her chastity and reputation at stake even if there were some enmity between her father and the father of the accused. In the concluding paragraph of the judgment, even the learned Assistant Sessions Judge says- It is pretty clear that there is no other reliable evidence on the side of the prosecution excepting the statement of Damani (p. w. 1) to show that on the date of occurrence the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with Damani. On the evidence of P.W. 1, I am satisfied that a conviction would be justified, particularly when the injuries on her vaginal parts, breast and the back of the body are fully corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor. 4. Sufficient corroboration of the statement of P.W. 1 is also available. P.ws. 2 and 3, who are 12 and 11 years old respectively, were in the company of P.W. 1. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge remarks that both P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were fairly intelligent to understand the affairs of life. There is no doubt that there is some discrepancy in the evidence of p.ws. 2 and 3. For instance, at one stage they had stated that when the accused committed rape on P.W. 1, P.W. 2 ran to call P.W. 5, while in the Sessions Court they deposed that both of them were standing at a distance of 2 to 3 feet so that they could see the whole act. My attention was also drawn to the deposition of P.W. 3 stating than the accused simply sat on the body of Damani for some time and then went away. They are rustic village girls and are likely to commit some discrepant statements regarding the occurrence which happened long before. But scrutinizing their evidence carefully, I am satisfied that these two young girls are deposing absolute truth when they say that the accused all of a sudden dragged P.W. 1, threw her on the ground, took out her cloths and committed rape despite their protest and shouts. It is true that P.W. 5 is the brother of P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 is the aunt of p.ws. 2 and 5. It is true that P.W. 5 is the brother of P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 is the aunt of p.ws. 2 and 5. But in a case of this nature, where the entire family reputation is at stake, it is difficult to imagine that p.ws. 1, 2, 5 and 6 conspired together to bring calumny on themselves by fictitiously coining a story that the accused committed rape on P.W. 1 in broad day light at 12 noon. 5. P.W. 6, mother of P.W. 1, deposed that her daughter immediately after the rape came to the house weeping and stated that the accused had outcast her. She did not narrate that the daughter disclosed the details of the acts of rape. In view of the evidence of P.W. 1 making an allegation against the accused, the fact that she did not give details of the act does not detract from the value of the evidence of P.W. 6. She also noticed the nail marks on the breast of her daughter. The learned Judge over-emphasised her statement that she saw nail marks on both the breasts. I am satisfied on perusal of the evidence that she is a witness of truth. 6. It is unnecessary to further pursue the matter. Mr. Mohapatra took considerable pains in taking me through the judgment of the trial Court and advancing argument as to how there are serious discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. After having gone through the evidence and the flimsy and artificial reasons advanced by the learned Assistant Session Judge to discard the evidence, I am satisfied that the judgment under appeal is not only unreasonable but is perverse. He has completely disregarded to take into consideration the natural course of human conduct. The evidence has merely been mechanically assessed as if mathematics were being worked out. 7. Mr. Mohapatra laid considerable emphasis on the evidence of d.w. 1 that the families of the accused and of P.W. 1 were not in good terms. I am not impressed by the evidence of d.w. 1 who appears to be unreliable to me. But that apart, even accepting the evidence of d.w. 1 as true, it is difficult to accept the further argument that on account of their ill-feeling of which no details have been given so as to judge its intensity and magnitude, a false case of this nature could be started. 8. But that apart, even accepting the evidence of d.w. 1 as true, it is difficult to accept the further argument that on account of their ill-feeling of which no details have been given so as to judge its intensity and magnitude, a false case of this nature could be started. 8. The statement of P.W. 1 soon after the occurrence is admissible as evidence of conduct u/s 8, Illustration (j) and that of the mother (p.w. 6) is admissible u/s 157 of the Evidence Act for corroboration. The disclosure of the factum of rape immediately after the occurrence is a statement at about the time when the occurrence took place. The expression "at about the time" has been construed as meaning disclosure within a time as is reasonably possible after the occurrence .There is therefore, copious-admissible evidence of considerable value on the basis of which a conviction can be founded. The judgment under appeal is an unreasonable one and must be set aside. The accused committed rape on P.W. 1 forcibly against her will and he is liable to be convicted u/s 376, Indian Penal Code. 9. The accused is a school boy of 17 years. Though the offence is very serious, he should be lightly handled so that chances of his rectification might not be marred. Accordingly I think that ends of justice should be served if he is punished with simple imprisonment for six months. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Respondent is convicted u/s 376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six (6) months simple imprisonment. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed