JUDGMENT M.H. Beg, J. - The appellant, Jagannath, has been convicted under Section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced to six years' R. I. and the appellant Jallu has been convicted under Section 3761109, I. P. C. and also sentenced to six years' R. I. by an Assistant Sessions Judge, of Budaun. 2. The prosecution case was : On 30th of November, 1966, a minor girl, Shyama Devi, P. W. 1 aged about I1 years, daughter of a man called Tursi of village Ujhauli in the district of Budaun, on her way back after having carried some food to her father' who was working on a field, sat down on a path to cut some grass. The accused came along and asked her why she was cutting the grass. The girl replied that it was the field of Babu Ram and that it was no business of the accused to question her. Thereupon, the appellant Jallu is said to have carried her inside the field for a few yards. She was thrown on the ground. Her mouth was caught and her neck pressed against the ground by Jallu, to prevent her from raising an alarm, while Jagannath raped her. The girl, however, managed to cry out with the result that Nem Chand, P. W. 2, Gokul Ram, P. W. 3, and her uncle Mukundi, P. W. 6, who were working in a potato field, at a distance of about 150 yards, ran towards the Arhar field. They saw Jallu appellant running ahead and Jagannath appellant following him. Jallu escaped. But, Jagannath was caught at a distance of about 40 yards in the south-eastern corner of the field before he could get to the public road. The prosecution witnesses had stated that he had stumbled and could, therefore, be caught. A first information report was lodged at police station Binawar in the district of Budaun at 7.15 p.m. which relates the incident as set out above and mentions the names of the witnesses who came and saved the victim and caught Jagannath and saw Jallu running away. 3. The girl was examined by Dr. G. Kulshareshta, M. 0. Incharge of Women's Hospital, Budaun, on 1-12-1966. She found that the girl's hymen was torn posteriorly and that the tear extended into the vagina. There were lacerations on the vagina which presented a raw appearance with angry looking wounds which bled on touching. 3. The girl was examined by Dr. G. Kulshareshta, M. 0. Incharge of Women's Hospital, Budaun, on 1-12-1966. She found that the girl's hymen was torn posteriorly and that the tear extended into the vagina. There were lacerations on the vagina which presented a raw appearance with angry looking wounds which bled on touching. The lower jaw of the girl was swollen and there was a bruise on her right hand extending upto the wrist 4" x 2z". The doctor's report, Ex. Ka-19, shows that rape had been committed on the girl. No sperms were detected either in the vagina or on the clothes sent for a chemical test of stains on them. This was probably because the girl had struggled and managed to raise an alarm so that the sexual act was interrupted. The girl'; age was also determined from ossification of bones shown in a report, Ex. Ka-20, as between 12,1 to 131 years. 4. The girls version having been fully corroborated by the injury report of the doctor, it was not possible to dispute the fact that a rape had been committed on the girl. The investigating officer, Suryapal Singh, P. W. 9, who visited the spot on 3-12-1966 found earth and arhar plants in the field of Arhar disturbed at the place where the occurrence was said to have taken place. He also found blood on the arhar plants which he collected. He prepared a site plan showing the location of the Arhar field which lay towards the south-east of pillage Ujhauli with a public road intervening. The place of occurrence was shown a few yards removed from a path running between the two fields adjoining the public road. But, apparently, this place was not visible clue to the arhar crop either from the public road or from the potato field in which the witnesses were working. It is probably due to the Arhar crop that Jagannath had stumbled so that he could be caught by the witnesses. 5. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the learned Sessions Judge had commented on the fact that the investigating officer had been negligent in not getting the body of the appellant Jagannath examined for any corresponding injuries to corroborate the prosecution version. Reference was made to Ram Kala v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1946 Alld. 5. It was pointed out on behalf of the appellants that the learned Sessions Judge had commented on the fact that the investigating officer had been negligent in not getting the body of the appellant Jagannath examined for any corresponding injuries to corroborate the prosecution version. Reference was made to Ram Kala v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1946 Alld. 191 where the failure of the prosecution to get the male organ of the accused examined after his arrest was considered a lacuna which cast a doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version. In that case, the girl, who had been raped and then murdered, was about 13 years in age. Reliance was placed in that case on the principle that the burden of the prosecution in criminal cases to establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt remains uniformly, from beginning to end, upon the prosecution, but, the case could not be held to lay down an invariable rule that every lacuna or shortcoming in a prosecution case must necessarily end in the acquittal of the accused. In the instant case, Jagannath appellant had been arrested then and there while trying to runaway from the spot and taken to the police station. There was certainly negligence on the part of the investigating officer in not getting the body of this accused examined. But, the distinguishing feature between this case and the case of Rani Kala was that the girl herself, who was the victim of rape, has given evidence here to show who had committed rape upon her. In Ram Kala's case the victim was, unfortunately, not alive to tell the talc and the evidence against the accused there was mainly circumstantial coupled with suspicious features. Each case turns on its own facts for a determination of the question whether the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt or not. No hard and fast rule can be laid down about' it. 6. Mr. Mulla, appearing for the appellants, has, however, argued that there is uncertainty in this case as to which of the two appellants had committed rape upon the girl so that each became entitled to the benefit of that uncertainty. No hard and fast rule can be laid down about' it. 6. Mr. Mulla, appearing for the appellants, has, however, argued that there is uncertainty in this case as to which of the two appellants had committed rape upon the girl so that each became entitled to the benefit of that uncertainty. It was also contended that the manner in which the rape was said to have been committed, by showing that Jallu appellant had caught hold of the girl's mouth, so that she may not shout, while the appellant Jagannath committed the rape, was most peculiar and unnatural. It was also pointed out that the girl herself had, in the course of her cross-examination, stated that Jallu appellant had actually lifted and taken her into the field. My attention was also drawn to the entry made in column No. 7 of the identification memo, Ex. Ka-14, of Jallu, who was put up for identification by Sri R. S. Rastogi, P. W. 8, a magistrate, on 6 3 1967, as Jallu disputed that he was known to the girl. He was correctly identified by the girl. The entry shows that the girl had stated that she had come "to identify Jallu who committed rape". The Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings was, I find, not even cross-examined so as to bring out the exact words used by the girl. It is difficult to believe that the girl would have used the technical terminology in Hindi for the offence of rape. The girl herself was not questioned about any contradictory statement made by her at the identification proceedings. Even assuming that she had stated, as she probably did, that she had come to identify Jallu who had clone the evil deed (bura kam) , as the offence is generally described by witnesses, I think the words 'evil deed' are comprehensive enough to include even help in the commission of rape. It is possible that, if her previous allegedly contradictory statement made at the identification proceedings of Jallu, had been put to her, as it should have been put, in the manner provided by Section 145, Evidence Act, before it could be used at all as a contradiction, she would have explained it quite satisfactorily by stating that she only meant that Jallu had helped in the manner she had described in her evidence. I also think that the statement made by the girl that Jallu actually lifted her and took her into the field could not be said to be inconsistent with her statement that he caught hold of her mouth. It could be a description of what he did earlier. No doubt, in her examination-in-chief, she had stated that Jagannath had placed her 3-4 paces removed from the path and then Jallu had caught her mouth and pressed her cheek at the time of the commission of rape by Jagannath. This statement was made immediately after she had stated that Jagannath had come with Jallu and objected to her cutting the grass. She must have been thinking of Jaganna:h's action only and not of the exact sequence of acts of the two accused when she talked of Jagannath. The action of Jallu in lifting her and carrying her into the field must have preceded and seemed to be distinct and separate, in her mind from the subsequent act of Jagannath in placing her in a helpless position of a few steps from the path to that she could be raped. Both the appellants had taken part in trying to overcome her resistance and had participated, by their separate acts, in the commission of rape on her by Jagannath. Therefore, the girl could not be said to be contradicting herself if she gave the general effect of the occurrence at one point and also the specific acts of each accused when questioned about them. The order in which she stated various facts would depend largely on the nature and order of questions, which were not recorded, put to her. The veracity of the fairly graphic and detailed account given by the girl, assigning specific and distinct acts to each of the two accused, which was fully borne out by 'medical evidence, could not he seriously questioned merely because her statements of fact appear, at certain points, to be disjointed and did not give facts in their natural or logical sequence. Such an effect can be easily created by clever cross-examination. I am unable to discover anything unnatural or improbable or incredible in her account. It leaves no room for uncertainty about the part played by each of the two accused. 7. Such an effect can be easily created by clever cross-examination. I am unable to discover anything unnatural or improbable or incredible in her account. It leaves no room for uncertainty about the part played by each of the two accused. 7. It was contended that the rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the court that, even if a prosecutrix in a case of rape is not to be treated as an accomplice, yet, corroboration in material particulars should ordinarily be required. Reliance was placed on Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 64 where it was laid down, after a reference to The King v. Baskerville, (1916) 2 K.B. 658 that it would be dangerous to formulate a rule about the kind of evidence which could be regarded as corroboration. It was pointed out there that the nature and extent of corroboration must necessarily vary with the circumstances of each case. It was also indicated there that corroboration, where required, must be from independent sources and must connect the accused with the particular offence with which he is charged. It was, however, observed there : "The tender years of the child coupled with other circumstances appearing in the case, such, for example, as its demeanour, unlikelyhood 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." 8. Reference was also made to Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of west Bengal, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 143 where it was held "girl who is a victim of an outrageous act is, generally speaking, not an accomplice though the rule of prudence requires that the evidence of a prosecutrix should be corroborated before a conviction can be based upon it .................. If the jury had been apprised of the necessity, ordinarily, speaking, of corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is for the jury to decide whether or not it will convict on the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix in the particular circumstances of the case before it. If the jury had been apprised of the necessity, ordinarily, speaking, of corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is for the jury to decide whether or not it will convict on the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix in the particular circumstances of the case before it. In other words, insistence on corroboration is advisable but is not compulsory in the eye of law." 9. The rule relating to corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix in a case of rape was based on the ground that it was easy to make allegations of rape and difficult to repel them. Again, even when the alleged victim is a consenting party, she may, when an illicit act of sexual intercourse has been discovered, allege rape only to protect her honour and reputation. Therefore, the rule evolved by English Courts was to find corroboration from the conduct of the prosecutrix and other circumstances before convicting. In particular, it had to be established that the victim complained at the earliest opportunity which was available to her. 10. In the case of girl of the age of the victim before me, the question of consent is quite immaterial. Therefore, the mere fact that no bundle of grass or implement for cutting it was shown to have been found, at the place where the offence took place, as not of much significance. The Investigating Officer, appears to have considered only the girl's petticoat, which he took into possession when the girl was taken to the police station, and the blood stained arhar crop, which he took from the arhar field, to be material. No witness was asked what happened to the grass cut or the implement with which the girl was cutting it. The fact that she had resisted is borne out by the injury on her hand and face and the fact that she cried out and attracted the witnesses. She gave out the name of the individual who had raped her and immediately after the occurrence. The conduct of the prosecutrix certainly corroborated her version. The fact that the witnesses saw both the appellants escape, with Jallu ahead and Jagannath following him, also corroborates the version given out by the girl. As already indicated, the medical evidence also corroborates her version. Therefore, even if it could be said that corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix was required in this case. The fact that the witnesses saw both the appellants escape, with Jallu ahead and Jagannath following him, also corroborates the version given out by the girl. As already indicated, the medical evidence also corroborates her version. Therefore, even if it could be said that corroboration of the version of the prosecutrix was required in this case. I find ample corroboration of it here. The corroboration here is not only the allegation that the girl was raped but also of the statement that each of the two accused played the part assigned to him. Corroborative evidence connecting a particular accused with an alleged sexual offence is not confined to that provided by the medical examination of the body of the accused or by stains on or tears of his clothing. To be found running away from the scene of occurrence, in circumstances mentioned above, is enough to connect the accused with the offence. 11. My attention was drawn to the fact that the witnesses had stated that they were not able, until they had heard the accusation levelled by the girl against Jagannath, what Jagannath had done. It is true that the witness, Nem Chand, P. W. 2, had stated that he had seen Jagannath actually sitting on the top of the victim while he was rushing to the spot where the occurrence took place. If the field had an Arhar crop which was fairly high, it is difficult to know what this meant. The witnesses had stated that they had only heard the cries and then ran towards the spot and caught Jagannath nearly forty yards away. The accused must have started running when they found that people were actually coming to the help of the girl. The girl had stated that the witnesses had shouted they were coming to save her. Indeed, Mukundi, P. W. f, the uncle of the girl, stated that he thought that the girl had been attacked by a wolf. This also shows that the spot was not visible from the potato field. It ;s unnatural to expect that such an offence could have been committed by the accused at a place which was visible. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant Jagannath was caught after he had left the girl, adjusted his clothes, and was running and had stumbled. This also shows that the spot was not visible from the potato field. It ;s unnatural to expect that such an offence could have been committed by the accused at a place which was visible. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant Jagannath was caught after he had left the girl, adjusted his clothes, and was running and had stumbled. The mere fact that one of the witnesses stated that he saw him at the top of the girl could not discredit the prosecution version, even if the witness had, among other statements, stated something which seemed improbable or imaginary keeping other facts and circumstances of the case in view. It i.", however, possible that this witness had gone ahead and may have seen Jagannath getting up from the body of the girl, which would also indicate the identity of the person who committed rape upon the girl, whereas others behind him did not see that. The particular statement was not incredible. 12. My attention was also invited to some evidence showing that the, appellants were not known to the victim of the witnesses before hand as they belong to other villages. It is true that the girl had stated, at one place in her cross examination, that she did not know the two accused from before and that she know them since the occurrence. She had stated in her examination-in-chief that she know both of them as they used to come to her village. She also stated that Jallu used to buy milk from her village and Jagannath used to accompany lion occasionally. It is, therefore, difficult to find out what the girl actually meant when she stated that she know the accused since the occurrence. She was not asked to explain. It may be that she meant that she had not spoken to them before the occurrence. In the course of her cross-examination, she also stated that she had not mentioned the name of Jallu to the witnesses who came to her aid. Immediately after that, she replied, in answer to a question by the Court, that she know the name of Jallu since before the occurrence although she had never been to his village. After that, she stated that her Dhoti had been placed on her face and her neck had been pressed. Immediately after that, she replied, in answer to a question by the Court, that she know the name of Jallu since before the occurrence although she had never been to his village. After that, she stated that her Dhoti had been placed on her face and her neck had been pressed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that she did not, once again at this point, state that Jallu was pressing her head clown. The extent to which details are given out by a witness, in answer to any question of otherwise, at a particular point, do not determine whether the whole version is reliable or not. The statement has to be viewed as a whole. It is not possible to infer, from the statement of the girl, read as a whole, that she meant to say that Jallu was not there at all merely because at one point, she stated : " Mainey gawahon ko Jallu ke nam nahin bataya tha." It is possible that the witness may have been thinking, at this particular moment, about the actual commission of rape on her. Or, the question put to her in cross-examination, which is not recorded, may have been whether she had given Jallu's name to the witnesses, suggesting that they had not themselves seen Jallu running away. The statement was vague in any case. As has been observed repeatedly by Courts, the mere vagueness in the statement of a witness or even discrepancies do not necessarily indicate that a witness is untruthful. Such features may indicate faulty recollection or confusion of mind in an untutored truthful witness. The witness may appear to make contradictory assertions when replying to questions in the course of examination or cross-examination at different moments while thinking of different subjects or the same subject from different angles to which the mind of the witness is directed, Having been taken through the statement of Shyama Devi, the victim, I do not find any such contradiction in her statement as to discredit her version. In any case, the version is strongly corroborated by other evidence already referred to. 13. It may also be mentioned here that the appellant Jagannath gave an absurd and patently incredible reason for his implication. In any case, the version is strongly corroborated by other evidence already referred to. 13. It may also be mentioned here that the appellant Jagannath gave an absurd and patently incredible reason for his implication. It was that the members of the family of Shyama Devi had asked him to give evidence against but he had rebuked them for making the suggestion. According to him, he had been implicated for this reason. This defence, however, shows that Jagannath appellant was known to the members of the family of Shyama Devi. Jallu appellant stated that he had a quarrel with Nem Chand, P. W. 2, over the price of milk so that Nem Chand had him named. The assertions made by both the appellants, for implication in an offence of the gravity alleged against them, have been rightly rejected by the trial court. These assertions only show that the appellants were known to the villagers of Ujhauli so that there could he no case of a mistaken identity as was also half-heatedly suggested on behalf of the appellants. 14. The result is that the offence of rape is fully established against Jagannath appellant. So far as Jallu is concerned, it has been urged that his part in the occurrence as well as the fact that he was not named by either Shyama Devi immediately after the occurrence to the witnesses who reached there entitle him to the benefit of doubt and an acquittal. If some plausible reason could have been made out for the girl as well as the other witnesses to name him falsely, it may have been possible to accept this contention on behalf of Jallu. Even jallu had not stated that he had any enmity with Shyama Devi or Gokul Ram or Mukundi. The version of the girl as regards his part was corroborated by the medical evidence of swelling on the face of the girl and the fact that the witnesses had seen him running away. If he was innocent, there was no need for him to run away. 15. I find that both the appellants are yr,urgmen against whom there is no previous conviction. Therefore, while upholding their convictions under Sections 370 and 376/109, I.P.C., I reduce the sentence of jagannath from 6 years' R. 1. to four years' R. 1. and of Jallu from 6 years' R' I. to two years' R. 1. 15. I find that both the appellants are yr,urgmen against whom there is no previous conviction. Therefore, while upholding their convictions under Sections 370 and 376/109, I.P.C., I reduce the sentence of jagannath from 6 years' R. 1. to four years' R. 1. and of Jallu from 6 years' R' I. to two years' R. 1. Subject to this modification this appeal is dismissed. Jallu is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him.