Judgment.-The appellant Vithappa Bhimappa Koli (accused) was charged with committing rape on a young girl of 10 years by name Chandravva. The learned Sessions Judge convicted him under section 376, Indian Penal Code and in the alternative under section 354, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. This appeal is filed by the accused against this conviction and sentence. 2. The case for the prosecution was that on 20th October, 1970 at about 9 A.M. when Chandravva, P.W. 2, was returning back to her house from the house of Bhimappa, P.W. 6 after giving curds sent by her mother and when she was near the land of one Ramappa, the accused came from behind, caught hold of her and bodily lifted her and took her to a ditch nearby and there he removed her langa and committed rape on her. On hearing the cries of Chandravva P.W. 2, the accused ran away from the place. Gadigeppa, P.W. 4, the cousin of Chandravva came there accidentally and learnt from her about the incident. Both of them went to the village where she narrated the incident to her mother Bhagavva P.W. 5. Then all the three persons met Bhimappa P.W. 6, uncle of Chandravva, and told him about the incident. Bhimappa P.W. 6 told them to give a complaint to the police patil and accordingly they went to the house of the police patil and found that he was not in the house. Then they went to the house of Sarpanch who was also not present in the house at that time. Then they went to the house of P.W. 9 Nabisab and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, Chandravva was taken on a cycle by Gadigappa P.W. 4 to the police station at Savalgi where the statement of Chandravva was recorded by P.W. 10 Head Constable who was in charge of the police station as per Exhibit P-6. On the basis of Exhibit P-6 the Head Constable P.W. 10 registered a case at about 1 p.m. against the accused for an offence punishable under section 375, Indian Penal Code and appears to have sent the first information report to the Court the same day. He seized the Langa (M.O. 1) which was wort by Chandravva under the panchanama Exhibit P-7. He seized the Langa (M.O. 1) which was wort by Chandravva under the panchanama Exhibit P-7. He took the girl to the Health Centre at Savalgi to get her examined by a doctor but the lady doctor was not available at that time. 3. Hiregowda, Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 14) took up further investigation at about 10-30 p.m. on the same day (20th October, 1970). The next day i.e. on 21st October, 1970 he went to Thakkalgi village. The accused was produced by the police constable P.W. 11, Patil before him, who was on beat duty. Hiregowda P.W. 14 arrested him and sent him to Savalgi with a direction to the Head Constable P.W. 10 to get the accused examined by P.W. 1 Dr. Milleshappa. P.W. 1, Dr. Malleshappa examined him and found an abrasion on the glans penis of the accused. He issued a certificate as per Exhibit P-2 in this behalf. P.W. 14 Hiregowda directed the Head Constable to take Chandravva to Jamakhandi for being examined by a doctor with his memo. Exhibit P-3, dated 21st October, 1970. The Head Constable took the girl to Jamakhandi and finding that the lady doctor had gone for training, came back to Savalgi and took one more Yadi from the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W. 14 (Exhibit P-4), dated 21st October, 1970 and went to Bijapur to get the girl examined by a lady doctor. Although the girl was taken to Bijapur on 21st October, 1970, she was not examined on that day or on the following day i.e., 22nd October, 1970. It is only on 23rd October 1970 that Dr. Girija a lady doctor in the Civil Hospital at Bijapur examined the girl Chandravva and issued a certificate as per Exhibit P-5 stating that there were no injuries on her private parts and opined that there were no signs of rape of the girl Chandravva P.W. 2. After due investigation the Sub-Inpector of Police P.W. 14 filed the charge-sheet against the accused on the allegation that he committed rape on Chandravva P.W. 2 on 20th October, 1970 at about 9 a.m. 4. The prosecution have placed reliance mainly on the evidence of P.W. 2 Chandravva and on some circumstances. In addition to these reliance is also placed on the evidence of P.W. 4 Gadigeppa, P.W. 5 Bhagawa, P.W. 6 Bhimappa and P.W. 9 Nabisab. 4(a). The prosecution have placed reliance mainly on the evidence of P.W. 2 Chandravva and on some circumstances. In addition to these reliance is also placed on the evidence of P.W. 4 Gadigeppa, P.W. 5 Bhagawa, P.W. 6 Bhimappa and P.W. 9 Nabisab. 4(a). Chandravva, at the time of the incident, was aged about 10 years and that fact is no more in dispute. Her evidence in substance is that while she was returning from the house of her uncle P.W. 6 Bhimappa at about 9 a.m. and when she was nearing the land of one Ramappa, the accused came from behind, caught hold of her, lifted her bodily and carried her to some distance where in a ditch he made her lie down forcibly. She tried to get up but the accused held her pressing against the ground and removed the ‘langa’ she was wearing. She again tried to get up, but the accused held her by his hand and did. not allow her to get up and thereafter the accused fell on her and committed rape. On account of the act of the accused, there was pain in her private parts and therefore she shouted and cried, whereupon the accused gagged her mouth by his hand and fisted her on her thighs. Even thereafter the accused continued the act of sexual intercourse for sometime and thereafter left her there lying and ran away. She got up and found some white substance on her thighs and private parts. She wiped it out by means of a leaf. She then took the ‘langa’ and tied it around her waist. While doing so, according to her, P.W. 4 Gadigeppa came there and she narrated to him about the incident. She thereafter, went to the village and narrated the incident to her mother, P.W. 5 Bhagavva, P.W. 6 Bhimappa and P.W. 9 Nabisab. 5. Regarding the incident as such, the only evidence is that of Chandravva herself. As Chandravva was of tender age, oath was not administered to her. But the learned Sessions Judge has recorded his opinion to the effect that she was capable of understanding. But it appears from the records that the learned Judge did not make himself sure that the girl understood the duty of speaking the truth even though oath was not administered, as it could not be done in this case. But the learned Sessions Judge has recorded his opinion to the effect that she was capable of understanding. But it appears from the records that the learned Judge did not make himself sure that the girl understood the duty of speaking the truth even though oath was not administered, as it could not be done in this case. The credibility of such a witness is a matter entirely left; to the decision of the Judge concerned. As regards Chandravva’s credibility, the learned Judge who recorded her evidence and. saw her in the witness box, has believed her. The question is whether the law required corroboration in such cases. The learned Judge has taken into consideration the evidence of P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 9 and the circumstance that on the ‘langa’ semen was found as per the report of the Chemical Examiner and lastly an abrasion found on the private part of the accused when he was examined on 21st October, 1970 and has come to the conclusion that there is ample corroboration to the testimony of Chandravva and in that view he has held the accused guilty punishable under section 376 Indian Penal Code or in the alternative under section 354, Indian Penal Code. 6. Chandravva, who has been raped is not an accomplice. If she was ravished, she is a victim of outrage. In such cases, the law is that the Courts treat the evidence of the girl ravished somewhat along with the same line as accomplice evidence and the position is that the rule about corroboration has hardened into one of law. It is no doubt true that the girl Chandravva has given a graphic description of the incident. If what she has stated is accepted as a true version of the incident, one would normally expect injuries of serious nature on her private parts and also injuries on her hands legs and back. 7. At Savalgi, there was a primary health centre. Although the girl was taken to the Primary Health Centre on the same day, she was not examined by any doctor because the evidence in this case shows that the lady doctor was not available. The very day at about 10-30 p.m. the Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation in this case. He directed the Head. Constable to take the girl to Jamakhandi Hospital for examination. That was on 21st October, 1970. The very day at about 10-30 p.m. the Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation in this case. He directed the Head. Constable to take the girl to Jamakhandi Hospital for examination. That was on 21st October, 1970. Here again, the evidence of the policeman who took the girl is to the effect that the lady doctor at Jamakhandi had gone for training and therefore the girl could not be examined on that day. The very day, another memo. was given to the Head Constable to take the girl to Bijapur Hospital obviously for examination of the girl. I find from the records that although the girl was taken to Bijapur on 21st October, 1970, she was not examined on that day by any doctor of the Civil Hospital. On the following day, the lady doctor put a query to the Head Constable who had taken the girl, to state the facts and for what reason the girl was to be examined. The Head Constable did not answer the query but merely brought it to her notice the memo. sent by the Sub-Inspector. The records show that the Medial Officer-in-charge of the Civil Hospital, Bijapur, requested P.W. 3 Dr. Girija to examine the girl on 22nd October, 1970. The girl was not examined on that day. The reason is not easily available from the records. The inference is that the girl was not produced by the Head Constable before the doctor on that day. Whatever may be the reason, Chandravva was examined only on 23rd October, 1970 at 5 p.m. Her examination disclosed that there was no injury on her private parts muchless any injuries on her body. She gave her opinion that if the girl had been raped on 20th October, 1970 the injuries would have still been there not only on the day she was examined but they would have been there for 5 to 6 days. Therefore, she opined that it was not a case of rape. 8. It was argued by Mr. Nagappa, the learned Counsel for the State, that for various reasons the girl could not be examined earlier than 23rd October, 1970 and by that time whatever injuries that had been caused on account of the act of the accused, might have been healed up and therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3 is not helpful in deciding whether the accused committed rape on Chandravva. He further pointed out that immediately after the incident the mother of the girl examined the private parts of the girl and found injuries there and the girl narrated the incident to the witnesses mentioned above. He also stated that there was an injury on the private part of the accused when he was examined on 21st October, 1970 by P.W. 1 Dr. Malleshappa and more than all, according to Mr. Nagappa, on the ‘langa’, which was worn by Chandravva at the time of the incident contained seminal stains. The oral evidence of the witnesses and the circumstances, according to Mr. Nagappa, fully and sufficiently corroborate the testimony of Chandravva. 9. P.W. 5 Bhagavva, the mother of Chandravva, has given evidence that she found injuries on the private parts of her daughter soon after the indicent. According to her, there was swelling and some parts of the vagina were reddish. There cannot be any truth in her statement because Dr. Girija, who examined the girl, has stated that if rape had been committed on the girl and. if there were swelling and reddishness on the private parts of the girl, the same would have been there for five or six days. That is the version on behalf of the prosecution itself. The competent witness to say as to whether rape had been committed on the girl and there were any signs to indicate rape was P.W. 3 and she is emphatic that Chandravva had not been raped at all. In view of this contradictory version put forward by the prosecution itself, it is difficult to believe the story of Chandravva more so, the story other mother Bhagawa. 10. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 9 have stated that immediately after the occurrence, Chandravva narrated to them the details of the incident. The question that arises is whether the previous statement of Chandravva to these witnesses can be accepted as corroboration. There is no doubt that such evidence is legally admissible as evidence of conduct. Illustration (i) to section 8 of the Evidence Act provides: “The question is, whether ‘A’ was ravished. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which the complaint was made are relevant.” It is, therefore, necessary to consider the question about the relevancy of such evidence for the purpose of corroboration. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which the complaint was made are relevant.” It is, therefore, necessary to consider the question about the relevancy of such evidence for the purpose of corroboration. 11. Section 157 of the Evidence Act lays down that ‘in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any farmer statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.‘In the instant case, Chandravva is stated to have made a statement relating to the crime at or about the time and therefore there can be no doubt that such a statement is legally admissible. But that evidence has got to be weighed like any other evidence, even though it is legally admissible. If what Chandravva has stated is true about the crime, a statement made immediately thereafter to the witnesses mentioned above undoubtedly could be acted upon as corroboration of the statement made by Chandravva. But it is incorrect to say that her statement to other witnesses about the crime corroborates the incident itself. 12. In a case of rape of other kindred offences against women or girls, the fact that statements were made by the victim shortly after the alleged offence and the particulars of such statements, so far as they relate to the charge against the prisoner may be given in evidence on the part of the prosecution not as being evidence of the facts complained of, but as evidence of the consistency, of the conduct of the prosecutrix with the story told by her in the witness box. Otherwise, one could get as many corroborations as the ravished girl could repeat. Corroborations relied on are the previous statements of Chandravva to the four witnesses mentioned above. That is not enough. There must be something more to come to the condition that the story told by Chandravva is probable and true. 13. The other circumstance that the ‘langa’ (petty coat) contained seminal stains goes a long way in favour of the prosecution. But the question is whether the stains found on the ‘langa’ have any connection with the crime alleged in this case. 13. The other circumstance that the ‘langa’ (petty coat) contained seminal stains goes a long way in favour of the prosecution. But the question is whether the stains found on the ‘langa’ have any connection with the crime alleged in this case. Although the prosecution case is that the ‘langa’ which was sent to the Chemical Examiner was the one which Chandravva was wearing at the time of the incident, it is clear that the ‘langa’ that was said to have been seized on the very day of the incident was not produced before Court and orders obtained for retention. No witness, including the panchas has come forward to state that the ‘langa’ was packed and sealed in their presence. The evidence of Chandravva is that the accused removed her ‘langa’ and committed rape on her and after committing rape, he ran way. Her further version is that she wiped off some white substance that was found on her private parts and thighs with a leaf and thereafter she tied her ‘langa’. If that were to be so, it is difficult to hold that the ‘langa’ that was sent to the Chemical Examiner was the one which Chandrawa was wearing at the time of incident. 14. Lastly, reliance is placed on the circumstance that there was an abrasion on the glans penis of the accused when he was examined on 21st October, 1970 by P.W. 1 Dr. Malleshappa. The accused was arrested according to the Sub-Inspector on 21st October, 1970 in the morning and was produced for being examined on the very same day in the evening. The mere circumstance that some abrasion was found on the glans penis of the accused without any other evidence to connect the accused with the crime, will not help the prosecution. To repeat again, I may state here that the report of the lady doctor who examined the girl is against the prosecution, namely, that the girl was not a victim of rape. If that be so, if some abrasion was found on the glans penis of the accused, no inference could be drawn from it. 15. It was argued that shortly after the incident, the accused was seen running, by P.W. 4. If that be so, if some abrasion was found on the glans penis of the accused, no inference could be drawn from it. 15. It was argued that shortly after the incident, the accused was seen running, by P.W. 4. His version is that he had gone to the land on that morning and while returning he saw the accused running away and thereafter he met Chandrawa, who told him about the incident. It is unnecessary to comment on bis evidence. Suffice it to mention that this person is the uncle of the girl. If he had gone to his field in the morning, it is unlikely that he would return back by 9 a.m. to the village. It is unsafe to place any reliance on the evidence of this witness. 16. The corroboration sought by the prosecution to the version of Chandrawa is not in the first instance proved satisfactorily. If the version of the girl that she was raped in the manner she has stated is taken into consideration, there would have been extensive injuries on her private parts as well as on her body. The absence of injuries or injury on any part of her body renders her story improbable. In order to rely upon her testimony, there must be confirmation as to some matter, which goes to connect the accused with the crime. There is neither direct or indirect evidence to probabilise the case of Chandrawa. The prosecution itself placed reliance on the evidence of the lady doctor, who has stated in emphatic terms that the girl was not a victim of rape as alleged by the prosecution. That being the position, the conviction of the accused either for the offence under section 376 or in the alternative for the offence under section 354, Indian Penal Code, cannot be upheld. 17. For the reasons stated above, I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused and acquit him. I direct that the accused be set at liberty forthwith. S.V.S. ----- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.