JUDGMENT Tare, J.- 1. This is an appeal by the State again5t the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by the respondent on Pramila Kumari (P. W. 10) a girl aged about 10 or 11 years on the noon of 28-5-1965, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1965 dated 14-10-1965. 2. The respondent, an artisan employed in the Heavy Electricals Factory at Bhopal, has his house adjoining the house of Manoharlal Bahel (P.W.15), the father of the prosecutrix. It was the prosecution case that at that time the respondent was alone and the other adult members including some guests were away. In the house, some children were playing. When the children finished their play and departed for their respective homes, the respondent asked Pramila Kumari to go by a particular door. He immediately closed the door, took her on his lap and satisfied his lust by committing rape on her. When she tried to cry, the respondent gagged her mouth. When the respondent saw the private parts of the prosecutrix bleeding, he proposed to take her to the house of one, Tiwari where he would apply medicines. The girl, however, refused and extricating herself from the clutches of the resp0ndent, ran to her own house. On reaching her own house, she called out to her mother to open the door and fainted in the door itself thereafter. On regaining consciousness, she narrated the entire incident to her mother Smt. Raj (P. W. 7) who sent for the father of the prosecutrix from the officer. In the meantime, people of the locality had collected and they had surrounded the house of the respondent. The crowd gave a beating to the respondent. Manoharlal Bahel (P. W. 15) lodged the first information report, Ex. P-1 after 'Which the investigating machinery started moving. The respondent was arrested, seizures were made and the parties concerned were sent for medical examination. 3. The respondent in his defence denied the prosecution case and asserted that he was not in his house at the relevant time. He also tried to establish a plea of alibi. In the alternative, it was suggested that there were adult members present in the house and the appellant could not have committed such a serious offence at that hour of the day. He also tried to establish a plea of alibi. In the alternative, it was suggested that there were adult members present in the house and the appellant could not have committed such a serious offence at that hour of the day. As such, it was also the defence suggestion that some one else might have committed a rape on the prosecutrix and the present respondent was sought to be implicated by tutoring the prosecutrix. 4. The learned Sessions Judge felt that the testimony of the prosecutrix was natural and cogent which could be relied upon. But he also felt that a corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix was necessary especially in view of the fact that she was the only witness of the 0ccurrrnce and moreover she happened to be a child witness. But in view of the state of medical evidence, the learned Judge thought that the necessary corroboration was not forthcoming. The learned Judge remarked that so far as the testimony of the prosecutrix and her demeanor were concerned, the same did not give any cause for suspicion, but in the light of other circumstances, her testimony would be un-acceptable without corroboration in material particulars. The learned Judge further found that the versions as given by the prosecutrix, by her mother, Smt. Raj (P. W. 7) and by her father, Manoharlal Bahel (P. W. 15) were by and large consistent with each other and the learned Judge would have had no hesitation in relying en the testimony of the prosecutrix but for the fact that he found that the testimony of the mother and the father of the prosecutrix could not be said to be independent so as to corroborate the version of the prosecutrix as the parents of the girl were interested witnesses. The main reason why the learned Judge gave the respondent benefit of doubt was that the medical evidence disclosed the presence of gonococci in the slides of the smears while no such gonococci were found in the slides relating to the respondent. Further, the learned Judge felt that the prosecution had not made an attempt to explain this discrepancy and, therefore, the probability might be that the appellant was not the person who might have raped the prosecutrix. Further, the learned Judge felt that the prosecution had not made an attempt to explain this discrepancy and, therefore, the probability might be that the appellant was not the person who might have raped the prosecutrix. We shall have an occasion to deal with this aspect Cram all angles; but the question in the present appeal will be as to what degree of corroboration would be sufficient if the trial Judge found that the evidence of the prosecutrix, as it stood, could be relied on but for the discrepancy in the medical evidence. 5. Before dealing with the oral evidence, we find it convenient to deal with the medical evidence. 6. As many as four doctors had examined the prosecutrix. The first doctor to examine the prosecutrix was Dr. (Mrs.) A. J. Suri (P. W. -16) who found that the girl was limping and was escorted by her father. There was slight bleeding from the vagina and there was slight swelling of external genetalis. The doctor stated that the prosecutrix did not allow proper examination because of tendernes. Therefore, this doctor referred the case to Cr. (Mrs.) Asha Prakash (P. W.-2). 7. Dr. (Mrs,) Asha Prakash (P. W.-2), the Gynaecologist stated that She had examined the prosecutrix on 29-5-1965, as the case had been referred by Dr. (Mrs.) A. J. Suri (P. W.-16). The father of the prosecutrix informed this doctor that the child had been bleeding since the previous day. The child did not allow proper examination and, therefore, this doctor, mined her superficially. On such examination, the d0ctor found slight swelling of external genitalia and there was slight bleeding. The doctor prescribed procaine penicillin as a prophylactic against venereal disease and asked the girl’s father to report immediately if the bleeding increased. Thus, the testimony of this doctor indicates that the girl had probably a venereal disease and it was necessary to prescribe a medicine against that disease. On the next day, this doctor as in formed in the evening that the girl was profusely bleeding. The doctor found the girl's condition to be poor and there was profuse bleeding from the vaginal. Therefore, she decided to examine the girl under anaesthesia and to perform an operation, if necessary to control the bleeding. On such closer examination, this doctor found a mid-line tear of the perineum extending up the posterior vaginal wall. The doctor found the girl's condition to be poor and there was profuse bleeding from the vaginal. Therefore, she decided to examine the girl under anaesthesia and to perform an operation, if necessary to control the bleeding. On such closer examination, this doctor found a mid-line tear of the perineum extending up the posterior vaginal wall. It was 1-1/2" long and about 1/2" deep and was bleeding profusely. On deeper examination, a raw cozing area about 1/2" x 1/2" was seen behind the cervix in posterior for-nix. This doctor sutured the perinial tear and packed the vagins, as a result of which bleeding was controlled. The girl had also to be given blood transfusion of 300 c. c. There after the girl progressed satisfactorily and was discharged from the hospital on the 5th June, 1965. Although this witness was extensively cross-examined with reference to the out-door ticket of the patient, the defence could not extract anything favourable to itself from such cross-examination. As regards the venereal disease against which this doctor wanted to guard the patient, she stated that it was syphilis or gonorrhoea. To the suggestion of the defence counsel that the girl was suffering from gonorrhoea, this doctor offered no comment except that she had given prophylactic medicine to guard against gonorrhoea. 8. Dr. B. Chaturvedi (P.W-1) had examined the prosecutrix on 28-5-1965 at about 9 P.M. The doctor found her height about 49” and weight to be 59 Ibs. She had 12 teeth each on upper and lower jaws. This doctor found that the secondary sex characters had not developed in the girl and no other marks of external injury were seen over the body except on the private parts. He found the girl’s hymen ruptured. Lower portion from 5 to 7 O’clock, Position of the hymen had completely gone. There was small degree tear of first degree on the vaginal mucuous membrance, cozing from the tear was present. Vagina admitted one finger with difficulty. The parts were very tender. This doctor took smear from the vaginal discharge and prepared slides. He positively suggested that the prosecutrix had been raped. This doctor had prepared the report, Ex P-1 regarding this medical examination. This doctor was cross-examined with reference to the commentary form the learned author, Taylor on “principle and Practice of Medical jurisprudence”. However, we shall have occasion to deal with that aspect a little later. He positively suggested that the prosecutrix had been raped. This doctor had prepared the report, Ex P-1 regarding this medical examination. This doctor was cross-examined with reference to the commentary form the learned author, Taylor on “principle and Practice of Medical jurisprudence”. However, we shall have occasion to deal with that aspect a little later. This doctor was also cross-examined with reference to the defence suggestion that if a girl falls in such a way that her private falls just over the protruding handle of a bamboo fan, he opined that such an injury could be caused in that manner but in that case there would be injuries on the other parts of the body as well. He did not find any other injuries on the prosecutrix. Thus, the natural corollary of the opinion of this doctor would be that the injuries caused to the private parts of the prosecutrix could not have been caused in any other manner except by committing a rape on her. 9. Dr. Ramsingh, the Pathologist (P. W.-17) who had examined the slides and had submitted his report, Ex. P-11, found that there were no spermatozoa in the slides relating to the presecutrix. However, gonococci were present. Red blood corpuscles were present in fair number and pus cells were also present. The testimony of the Pathologist coupled with the testimony of Dr. M. Bakshi (P. W.-3) and Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Prakash (P. W. 2) would indicate the presence of gonorrhoea on the private parts of the prosecutrix, although the prosecution did not make an attempt to have that opinion specifically solicited. The learned Sessions Judge did not pay attention to this aspect at all. It appears that he was in doubt whether the presence of gonococci in the slides pertaining to the prosecutrix could be attributed to the person committing a rape who might be suffering from gonorrhoea and who might have transmitted the gonococci, or whether the gonococci were found In the slide as the prosecutrix was suffering from gonorrhoea. The learned Judge appears to have assumed it without any basis that neither the prosecutrix nor the present respondent suffers from gonorrhoea. 10. So far as the present respondent is concerned, the report of the Pathologist, Dr. Ramsingh (P.W-17) with reference to the report, Ex. The learned Judge appears to have assumed it without any basis that neither the prosecutrix nor the present respondent suffers from gonorrhoea. 10. So far as the present respondent is concerned, the report of the Pathologist, Dr. Ramsingh (P.W-17) with reference to the report, Ex. P-12 disclosed that there were no spermatozoa, no gonococci or no red blood corpuscles in the slides pertaining to the respondent. When cross-examined, this Pathologist stated that the presence of gonococci would indicate gonorrhoea and pus cells would indicate presence of pus. He also clarified that in fact gonococci are found in pus. 11. The learned Sessions Judge did not at all pay attention to this aspect of the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent took it for granted that neither the prosecutrix nor the respondent suffered from gonorrhoea and all the arguments were advanced on these premises. We may observe that whatever medical evidence is on record, the same clearly indicates the presence of gonorrhoea on the private parts of the prosecutrix. We think it proper to record this finding specifically. 12. As regards the presence of blood on the clothes of the prosecutrix and the appellant which had been seized, the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex. P-19 disclosed presence of blood on the Kamij and the chaddi (under-wear) of the prosecutrix as also on the Chaddi (under-wear) of the respondent. No blood was detected on the Bal1iyan and pubic hair of the respondent. The Chemical Examiner found spermatozoa on the under-wear of the prosecutrix but no spermatozoa were found on the other articles. The reported of the Serologist, Ex. P-21 confirmed the presence of blood on the Kamij of the prosecutrix, but the presence of blood on the under wears of the prosecutrrx and the appellant could not be confirmed as the stains had disintegrated by that time. For the same reason, the blood grouping also could not be done. Thus, the said reports would disclose the presence human blood on the Kamij of the prosecutrix but the presence of mere blood on the under-wears of the prosecutrix and the respondent which was not confirmed to be of human origin. As such, the said reports cannot be considered to be incriminatory, as against the respondent, except to the extent that some blood not established to be of human origin, was found on the under-wear of the respondent. As such, the said reports cannot be considered to be incriminatory, as against the respondent, except to the extent that some blood not established to be of human origin, was found on the under-wear of the respondent. 13. Thus, the medical evidence disclosed the presence of spermatozoa and bloods on the under-wear of the prosecutrix, but not on any of the clothes of the respondent. Gonococci were detected in the slides pertaining to the prosecutrix, but not in the slide, pertaining to the respondent. It was this discrepancy which raised a doubt in the mind of the teamed Judge of the trial Court, and the learned for the respondent also stressed this aspect emphatically to contend that in no case the present respondent could have been the perpetrator of the crime. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that the presence of gonococci in the slides pertaining to the prosecutrix indicated that a person suffering from gonorrhoea must have committed rape on her and must have transmitted the gonococci. We may observe that this suggestion is without any basis and the same stands negatived by the medical evidence referred to above. On the other hand, we have positively recorded a finding that it was the prosecutrix who was suffering from gonorrhoea though of a mild type. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the acrobatic arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent in the alternative based on this un-warranted assumption. In our opinion, the only case to be considered would be whether in view of the fact that the prosecutrix was suffering from gonorrhoea, the non-tranmission of gonococci to the respondent would be an indication of his innocence. We reject the contention out right that a person suffering from gonorrhoea might have perpetrated the crime so as to transmit the gonococci to the private parts of the prosecutrix. 14. Then, we come to the testimony of the prosecutrix herself. She, in her deposition, as P. W. 10 stated that she had been to the house of the respondent on the date of occurrence which was a Friday. The time was 2 P. M. According to her, she played with the nephews and nieces of respondent for about an hour. Then, we come to the testimony of the prosecutrix herself. She, in her deposition, as P. W. 10 stated that she had been to the house of the respondent on the date of occurrence which was a Friday. The time was 2 P. M. According to her, she played with the nephews and nieces of respondent for about an hour. Other children went out and when the witness was about to leave, the respondent called her and seated her on his lap in a room where he was sitting. The respondent took out her under-wear and also his own under-wear. The witness was trying to run away but the respondent seated her on his lap. The witness was unable to state as to what the respondent was doing to her. However, she positively stated that the respondent med to seat her on his organ. As a result, there was pain in her private parts and subsequently, there was bleeding. The respondent used to keep his organ on the organ of the witness. However, his organ remained outside and her organ started bleeding the witness wanted to cry, but the respondent would gag her mouth. She stated that her under-wear and Kamij were stained with blood. The witness put on her under-wear but the respondent put water and tried to wash the blood stains. The respondent proposed to her that he would apply medicines. The witness wanted to go home, but the respondent tried to take her to the house of one, Tiwari. However the witness got herself extricated and ran away to her own house. The witness found the door of her house closed She called her mother to open the door. Thereafter she fainted and she did not know as to what happened thereafter. In her cross-examination, the witness stated that she was playing with one Narendra, one Pratibha Kumari (D. W.-3) and one younger child. She further stated that the respondent's mother had also come to her home during holidays. But the mother had gone out and other women of the household including the respondent's e1der sister and younger sister had also gone out. The witness stated that when she went to the respondent's house for playing with the children, it was 2 O'clock, but when the respondent tried to take her to the house of one Tiwari, after commission of the crime, it was about 3 O'clock. The witness stated that when she went to the respondent's house for playing with the children, it was 2 O'clock, but when the respondent tried to take her to the house of one Tiwari, after commission of the crime, it was about 3 O'clock. The defence did not succeed in getting anything favourable to itself from the cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the trial Judge found that her testimony was, by itself, reliable so as to lend assurance to the prosecution case as a whole. 15. Out of the parents of the prosecutrix, the testimony of her mother, Smt. Raj (P. W-7) is more important. The mother, in her deposition, stated that on the date of the occurrence, she was sleeping in her house. When the prosecutrix returned to the home, the time was between 3 to 3-30 P. M. The witness was sleeping. The prosecutrix asked the witness to open the door. No sooner the door was opened, the prosecutrix fell down unconscious. The witness heard the thud of her fall. At that time, the prosecutlix had a wet under-wear in her hand, but he was not wearing any under-wear. The Kamij of the prosecutrix was also wet and there were blood stains on both the clothes of the prosecutrix, but the stains had become faint as they appeared to have been removed by washing. 'The witness lifted the prosecutsix and lad her on a cot and made attempts to revive her. On regaining consciousness, the witness asked the prosecutrix as to what the matter was and the prosecutrix gave her the details of the incident leading to the commission of the crime. This version repealed by the witness was fully in consonance with the version given by the prosecutrix in her deposition. The trial Judge was also of the view that there is no inconsistency in the testimony of this witness and the version of the prosecutrix. But the learned Judge thought that the testimony of this witness could not be considered to be corroboration from independent material on record. 16. At this stage, we may further observe that the testimony of Shri Manoharlal Bahel (P. W.-15), the father of the prosecutrix is in full conformity with the version as given by the prosecutrix and her mother. 17. At this stage, we may refer to the testimony of two prosecution witnessess and one defence witness. 16. At this stage, we may further observe that the testimony of Shri Manoharlal Bahel (P. W.-15), the father of the prosecutrix is in full conformity with the version as given by the prosecutrix and her mother. 17. At this stage, we may refer to the testimony of two prosecution witnessess and one defence witness. Nirmalsingh (P. W.-8), a student aged about 16 years stated that on the date of the occurrence at about 3-45 P. M., the another of the prosecutrix sent him to call her husband Smt. Raj had told him that Shri Manoharlal Bahel be informed that the prosecutrix was in a serious condition and he should cone at the earliest. The witness first went to his father in the administrative building of the Heavy Electricals and enquired as to where Shri Bahel sits. However, the witness's father contacted Shri Manoharlal Bahel and the witness returned in his company. 18. Pritamsingh (P. W-9). father of Nirmalsingh (P. W.-8) gave a version in conformity with the version of Nirmalsingh. Thus, from the testimony of these two witnesses, it is established that the incident must have taken place at about 3 or so and at 3-45 P. M. Shri Manoharlal Bahel (P. W-15), the father of the pf0se.utrix left for home. 19. We may also refer to the testimony of Pratibha Kumari (D. W. 3), a girl aged about 10 years who was undoubtedly playing with the prosecutrix before the occurrence. Even according to this witness, the prosecutrix was at the house of the respondent. The witness stated that the prosecutrix had come to play with her at about 2 O'clock. The witness asserted that there were adult male and female members in the house at that time. But evidently this assertion of hers could not have been correct. Further, she tried to support the defence version that the prosecutrix tried to take out something from an almirah and she fell down and the injury to her private parts was caused in that process. That was evidently an absurd suggestion which stands completely negatived by the medical evidence and, in our opinion, the testimony of this witness was rightly rejected by the trial Judge. If other adult family members had been present, the respondent would lot have dared to commit a rare on a small girl. That was evidently an absurd suggestion which stands completely negatived by the medical evidence and, in our opinion, the testimony of this witness was rightly rejected by the trial Judge. If other adult family members had been present, the respondent would lot have dared to commit a rare on a small girl. Further, we are convinced that a rape was committed on the procecutrix as is clear from the medical evidence and at about the relevant time, the prosecutrix was at no other place except at the house of the respondent. In view of these circumstances, it is absurd on the part of the defence to suggest that the rape may have been committed by some person at some other place. From the testimony of the prosecutrix herself as also even from the testimony of the defence witness Pratibha Kumari (D. W. 3), it is clear that the prosecutrix was at the house of the respondent from 2 P. M. onwards and it was only after a rape was committed on her that she returned to her own house at about 3.30 P. M. or so as deposed to by her mother, Smt. Raj (P. W. 7). 20. The defence also tried to lead evidence of alibi. Vishwanath Nilose (D. W. 1), with reference to the attendance register, Ex. D-5 and the attendance card, Ex. D-4 stated that the respondent was present in the Heavy Electricals Factory on the date of occurrence. According to the at endance card which is punched by the employee himself when entering the factory and when leaving the factory, the witness stated that the card showed that the respondent had left the factory at 2.30 P. M. on that day. The other witness Rajendra Kumar Tiwari (D. W. 2) stated that he had left the factory at about 2.30 P. M. and had reached his own house in the company of the respondent at about 3.15 P. M with reference to this evidence of alibi, we may observe that the attendance card and the attendance register would at the most indicate that the respondent might be in the factory till 2.30 P. M. But this evidence, as was rightly observed by the trial Judge, is not worth reliance. Even if it were held to be otherwise, it does not altogether exclude the probability of the respondent returning home and committing the nefarious act with the prosecutrix. It was not that the rape was committed at 2 P. M. Even according to the defence witness Pratibha Kumari (D. W. 3), the prosecutrix played with her for about an hour and it was thereafter that the prosecutrix tried to return home. Therefore, the rape must have been necessarily committed on the prosecutrix sometime after 3 P. M. Thus, this defence evidence of alibi would not altogether exclude the probability of the respondent having committed rape on the prosecutrix at any time between 3 P. M. to 3.30 P. M. Thus, in our opinion, this defence evidence of alibi is of no avail so as to counter the positive direct evidence led by the prosecution which even the trial Judge found, did not suffer from any infirmities and which could be held to be reliable but for the fact that there was a discrepancy in the medical evidence. Presently, we propose to deal with that aspect in details. 21. The learned counsel for the State urged that in view of the medical evidence on record, the only conclusion to be drawn should be that it was the prosecutrix who was suffering from gonorrhoea and that would explain the presence of gonococci in the slides pertaining to the prosecutrix. We may observe that the Public Prosecutor was grossly negligent in not having brought out this fact specincally. But from the fact that Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Prakash, Gyanaecologist, (P.W. 2) had prescribed procaine Penicillin as a prophylactic against venereal disease, it would be reasonable to infer that the prosecutrix must have had venereal disease at the time the witness examined her. The witness first examined the prosecutrix on 29-5-1965 and she was thoroughly examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Prakash (P. W. 2) on 30-5-1965. The transmission of gonccocci from a person suffering from gonorrhoea who might be supposed to have committed rape would, in our opinion, be not possible in such a short time specially in the case of a small girl when tile penetration could not have been full, but must have been partial and from the point of view of the perpetrator of the crime just superficial. Earlier, we have already recorded it specific finding despite the lapse on the part of the Public Prosecutor to have that fact brought on record specifically. On the basis of the finding recorded by us earlier, we have to proceed on the premises that it was the prosecutrix who was suffering from a mild type of gonorrhoea and as a result of which gonococci were found by the Pathologist. In this connection, we might refer to the commentary of the learned author Modi on medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 7th edition at page 335 under the heading, "Signs of Venerea Infection":- "The existence of a venereal disease in the female is not positive evidence of sexual connection. Gonorrhoeal infection of the genital tract particularly in young girls and infants may be conveyed through infected hands or other articles. Outbreaks of gonorrhoea in children in schools, boarding houses or hospitals, have often been traced to the common use of the infected sponges, towels, bath tubs, etc." Further on, the learned author observes- "The period of incubation of gonorrhoea varies usually from two to eight days, although it may be as short as twenty four hours and as long as two weeks." Thus, according to the learned author Modi, gonorrhoea in young children can be on account of causes other than sexual intercourse and the period of incubation can be between two to eight days, the minimum period in an exceptional case being 24 hours. 22. The learned author Taylor in his commentary "Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence" 12th edition at page 62 observes as follows:- "Time is the first important factor. When gonorrhoea is acquired by sexual connection there is always an interval of from 2 to 4 days (occasionally it may be nearly a week) between infection and the appearance of a discharge with marked inflammatory redness of the mucous membrane. When other infections are thus caused the interval is of less certain duration but commonly from 2 days to a week elapses before a discharge is seen. A discharge can hardly appear within 24 hours of the offence if the offence was the cause of the discharge. When other infections are thus caused the interval is of less certain duration but commonly from 2 days to a week elapses before a discharge is seen. A discharge can hardly appear within 24 hours of the offence if the offence was the cause of the discharge. If there is a discharge, and if the offence is alleged to have occurred some days previous to examination, then the proof of cause and effect will have to depend upon other factors, The examination of stains on the under-linen may show that infection was already present at the time of the offence. Infection is not, of course, necessarily transmitted. Further, a man may be apparently free from disease and yet have latent infection which, planted into the vagina, may there cause gonorrhoea with profuse discharge. it is well known that gonorrhoea is a disease of very uncertain duration. It may continue to be latent for weeks, months, or even years; it is therefore very unwise to express an opinion as to its duration." Having in view the opinion of there medical experts, it does not appear that the prosecutrix in the present case could have contacted gonorrhoea on account of the rape committed on her and, in our opinion, it would not be warranted to assume that a person suffering from gonorrhoea might have committed rape on the girl. The gonorrhoea, as we feel, was already present in the girl in a mild form. However, the fact that there were no signs of gonococci in the smears pertaining to the respondent, would not necessarily establish the defence contention that in the absence of any transmission of gonococci, his innocence should be held to have been established. 23. Next we come to the question whether there was in fact corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix and whether corroboration was necessary to what extent. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that corroboration from some independent source would be necessary which ought not to be tainted. 23. Next we come to the question whether there was in fact corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix and whether corroboration was necessary to what extent. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that corroboration from some independent source would be necessary which ought not to be tainted. From this point of view, the learned counsel urged that the mere fact that the prosecutrix told her mother about the incident soon after the occurrence would not be a material fact as the in formation gathered by the mother would be from the same tainted source, namely, the prosecutrix and, therefore, the fact that the mother might be repeating what the prosecutrix might have told her cannot be taken to be a corroboration. In this connection, we might observe that this argument is partly cone ct. It is not that the version of the mother would corroborate the version of the prosecutrix and that this much corroboration would be sufficient. In our opinion, what is material is the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix in disclosing the incident to persons who would be entitled to know about it and such a conduct would lend assurance. There can be no doubt that in some types of cases further corroboration might be needed. The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondent was on the pronouncement of the Law Lords of the House of Lords in The King Vs. Christie, 1914 Appeal Cases, 545. In that case, the statement of the victim was sought to be made admissible on four grounds: (1) As part of the act of identification or as explanatory of it. (2) As a statement made in the presence of the prisoner in circumstances calling for some denial or explanation from him, the truth of which he admitted by his conduct and demeanour. (3) As proof of the consistency of the boy's conduct before he was examined with his testimony given at trial (4) As part of the res gestae. As to the first point, the learned Law Lords rejected the contention of the Attorney General regarding the admissibility of the statement of the victim. We may observe that the decision certainly rules out the admissibility of such a statement. As to the first point, the learned Law Lords rejected the contention of the Attorney General regarding the admissibility of the statement of the victim. We may observe that the decision certainly rules out the admissibility of such a statement. But so far as our country is concerned, we are governed by specific provisions of the Statute and specially the Indian Evidence Act and we do not say anything more except to assert that such a subsequent statement made by the victim would only be a relevant subsequent conduct of the victim which might be taken into consideration and which would be admissible in evidence under section 8 of the Evidence Act. 24. Judged in this light, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent has no force that the mother of the prosecutrix cannot be considered to be an independent source where the prosecutrix has immediately reported the incident to her mother. As regards the rule of corroboration we might advert to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 , wherein their Lordships have laid down that the true rule is that in every case of this type of "sexual offence; the rule about the advisability of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In a jury case he must tell the jury of it and in a non-jury case he must show that it is present to his mind by indicating that in his judgment. But he should also point out that corroboration can be dispensed with if, in the particular circumstances of the case before him, either the jury, or, when there is no jury, he himself, is satisfied that it is safe to do so. The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction, but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge, before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. The tender years of the child, coupled with other circumstances appearing in the case, such, for example, as its demeanour, unlikelihood of tutoring and so forth, may render corroboration unnecessary, but that is a question of fact in every case. The tender years of the child, coupled with other circumstances appearing in the case, such, for example, as its demeanour, unlikelihood of tutoring and so forth, may render corroboration unnecessary, but that is a question of fact in every case. The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the Judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand. 25. As regards the nature and the extent of corroboration required when the Judge does not consider it safe to dispense with it, their Lordships adopted the rules as laid down by Lord Reading in Baskerville's case, (1916) 2 KB 658, as follows:- "(1) First, it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should it itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. (2) Secondly, the independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably conduct or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular tile testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime. (3) Thirdly, the corroboration must from independent sources and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not b-e sufficient to corroborate that of another. But of course the circumstances may be such as to make it safe to dispense with the necessity of corroboration and in those special circumstances a conviction so based would not be illegal. (4) Fourthly, 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." Their Lordships further considered another aspect of the case whether the statement of the prosecutrix made to her mother could be treated as corroboration of her statament. Their Lordships laid down that the evidence is legally admissible as evidence of conduct because of Illustration (j) to section 8, Evidence Act. Their Lordships laid down that the evidence is legally admissible as evidence of conduct because of Illustration (j) to section 8, Evidence Act. Further on, their Lordships laid down that although all mothers may not be considered to be independent witnesses for the purpose of corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix, yet, a mother merely by reason of her interestedness would not be dubbed as un-reliable. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and in some cases at least, the mother may be regarded as an independent witness, for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the prosecutrix. Thus, according to their Lordships, a mother need not be discarded outright, but her testimony can be used in corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix because of the sub• sequent conduct of the prosecutrix in narrating the incident to her mother. Thus so far as our country is concerned the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has finally settled the matter regarding the admissibility of such a statement, as also the value to be attached to it and, therefore, differing from the learned Judge of the trial Court, we hold that the mother in the present case could be considered to be an independent witness for the purpose of seeking a corroboration of the testimony of the child witness, Pramila Kumari (P. W. 10). 26. Moreover, in the present case, we think that the rule of corroboration could be dispensed with and the testimony of the child witness who is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence lends assurance to this Court that whatever she had told is the truth. She gave her statement in a forthright manner and the trial Judge was also convinced about It. The trial Judge further felt that there was nothing in the testimony of the mother also so as to doubt its veracity. But the main difficulty experienced by the trial Judge was about the discrepancy in the medical evidence. We feel that the testimony of the child witness, on its own is liable to be accepted in the present case even without further corroboration in view of the following circumstances: (1) Kumari Pramila was at the house of the respondent playing with other minor children from 2 O'clock. We feel that the testimony of the child witness, on its own is liable to be accepted in the present case even without further corroboration in view of the following circumstances: (1) Kumari Pramila was at the house of the respondent playing with other minor children from 2 O'clock. The rape was committed on her at any time between 3 to 3-15 P. M. Even the defence evidence relating to alibi would not rule out the improbability of the respondent being in his own house any time between 2-45 to 3-30 P. M. (2) The prosecutrix soon after the offence immediately ran to her house and called her mother. Actually the prosecutrix fainted at the door of her own house. (3) The prosecutrix is fully corroborated by the medical evidence which is positive and definite on the question that she had been raped. (4) Even if it were to be assumed for a moment that it is necessary to seek a corroboration in the present case, the same, in our opinion, is amply forthcoming in the shape of the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix as is disclosed from the testimony of her mother and the medical evidence on record and the time-lag during which the sequence of events took place. Therefore, differing from the learned Judge of the trial Court, we come to the conclusion that there is corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix to more than sufficient degree as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan (supra). 27. Lastly, we may note that on account of the immediate complaint made by the prosecutrix to her mother, the news spread in the locality and people of the locality collected at the house of the respondent and they gave him a sound thrashing as is clear from the injury report, Ex. P-4 made by Dr. M. Bakshi, Casuatly Officer (P. W. 3). The prosecution witnesses have deposed about the subsequent man-handling of the respondent by the mob which had collected. As such, the prosecution has explained the injuries on the respondent. 28. P-4 made by Dr. M. Bakshi, Casuatly Officer (P. W. 3). The prosecution witnesses have deposed about the subsequent man-handling of the respondent by the mob which had collected. As such, the prosecution has explained the injuries on the respondent. 28. We arc unable to agree with the conclusion of the learned judge of the trial Court as in our opinion, the conclusion is vitiated by the fact that although the trial Judge was of tile view that the testimony of the prosecutrix on its own could be relied on, he came to a wrong conclusion to the effect that a corroboration was necessary in the present case and secondly, he wrongly held on the strength of some earlier Indian cases that the mother could not be considered to be an independent witness for the purpose of corroboration. We feel fully convinced that it was the present respondent who committed the attrocity on a girl of tender years in the manner described by her. Therefore, we set aside the respondent's acquittal by allowing this appeal and by finding him guilty of the offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code. As regards the sentence, we feel that if an adult commits a rape on a child of tender years who does not even understand the implication of the sexual act, such an action calls for no leniency but a deterrent sentence so as to prevent the recurrence of such an event. If this were not done, the very safety of children of tender years in the society would be in danger. From this point of view, we sentence the respondent to rigorous imprisonment for 5 (Five) years. 29. The appeal is accordingly allowed as indicated.