JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - Petitioner has been convicted u/s 376 Indian Penal Code, for having committed rape on a young girl of five years' old, (P. W. 1) on 12-2-1979 at 6.30 p.m. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of 25/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment, for fifteen days, by the trial Judge. On appeal, the conviction and sentence have been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge and hence the revision. 2. It is the prosecution case that on the date of occurrence, just before the sunset, the victim girl wanted to answer the call of nature and requested her grandmother who is since dead, to accompany her, but the grandmother directed the accused who was there, to accompany to victim girl. After the victim girl eased herself and washed in the nearby tank and was returning, the accused lifted her to the cow-shed and removing her frock cohabited with her as a result of which there was profuse bleeding from the vagina of the victim girl. The girl cried loudly but the accused gagged her mouth. The mother and grandmother reached the spot and found bleeding from the private part of the girl. One Natabar Das who was closely related to the family lodged the report whereafter the police took up investigation. The girl was medically examined by the doctor (P. W. 4). The accused was also medically examined by the Professor of Forensic Medicine of S. C. B. Medical College &. Hospital (P. W. 3) and his report is Ext. 1. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and on being committed, the accused stood his trial 3. The plea of the accused is one of denial and a further plea has been taken that a false case has been foisted on account of acute caste feeling between Brahmins and Harijans and Harijans stopped working for Brahmins. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and defence examined one. The plea of the accused is one of denial and a further plea has been taken that a false case has been foisted on account of acute caste feeling between Brahmins and Harijans and Harijans stopped working for Brahmins. Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and defence examined one. P W. 1 is the victim girl herself, P. W. 2 is her mother ; P. W. 3 is the Professor of Forensic Medicine who examined the accused on police requisition ; P. W. 4 is the Medical Officer, Erasama, who examined the victim girl on the date of occurrence ; P. W.5 is the grand-father of P. W. 1; P. W. 6 is the A. S. I. of Police at Erasama Police Station and P. W. 7 is the Officer-in-charge of Erasama Police Station. 4. P. W. 1 has given a vivid description of the entire incident of the evening and her evidence has been accepted by both the Courts below. P. W. 2, the mother has also deposed to the effect that P. W. 1 contemporaneously narrated the entire incident to her when she reached on hearing hulla and, therefore, the evidence of P. W. 2 is a corroborative piece of evidence. The evidence of the doctor (P. W. 4) is to the effect that he found lacerated injury irregular in shape over the fourchette (over the parineum) simple in nature which may be possible by forcible penetration of penia or forceful penetration, by a blunt weapon. Thus, the evidence of the doctor corroborates the evidence of the victim girl. Relying on the aforesaid items of evidence, both the Courts below have convicted the petitioner u/s 376, Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urges that the victim girl being a young child of five years, her evidence cannot be accepted without any corroboration and such corroboration being absent, the conviction is not sustainable in law. 5. Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urges that the victim girl being a young child of five years, her evidence cannot be accepted without any corroboration and such corroboration being absent, the conviction is not sustainable in law. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that as a proposition of law it cannot be said that without corroboration the evidence of the victim girl cannot be accepted though Court looks for corroboration as a rule of prudence He further submits that in the present case there is sufficient corroboration to the trustworthy evidence of the victim girl (P. W. 1) and, therefore, the revisional Court should not interfere with the order of conviction. 6 It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 Supreme Court, 911, that a victim of rape cannot be treated as an accomplice but the evidence of the victim is to be treated almost like the evidence of an accomplice requiring some corroboration. All the same, if a conviction is based on the evidence of a prosecutrix without any corroboration, it will not be illegal on that sole ground. In another case of the Supreme Court reported in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat it was held that the law does not require corroboration and, therefore, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is believed, there is no bar to convict the accused on her testimony alone. Thus, the rule requiring corroboration is not a rule of law but a rule of prudence and the need for corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except in cases 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 aforesaid rule of prudence necessitating corroboration applies whether the victim girl is a child or an adult. The nature and extent of corroborative evidence that is required necessarily would vary according to the circumstances of each case. The nature and extent of corroborative evidence that is required necessarily would vary according to the circumstances of each case. It is nowhere the rule that the evidence of the victim girl should be corroborated in all particulars and it would be sufficient if the evidence of the prosecutrix is corroborated in crucial par's. Her contemporaneous statement to other witnesses would also be corroborative evidence u/s 157 of the Evidence Act Judged from the aforesaid standard, it must be held that in the present case, the evidence of the victim girl) P.W. 1) receives sufficient corroboration from the statement of her mother (P.W. 2) to whom she narrated the incident immediately after the occurrence and also the madical evidence of the doctor (P. W 4) who examined the victim girl and opined that the injury on her private part is on account of the penetration of the sexual organ of a male person into the vagina. 7. P. W. 1, a young girl of five years' old, has narrated the entire story in her evidence. Her evidence read as a whole inspires lot of confidence and she appears to me to be a very truthful witness. It has been elicited from her evidence that she shouted on receiving the injury and on hearing her hulla, her mother (P. W. 2) reaches the place to whom she nanated the incident while she was crying. P. W. 2, the mother, fully corroborates the aforesiid version of the victim girl (P. W. 1). Even the grandfather (P. W. 5) who reached the house of P. W. 1 shortly after the occurrence on being called also stated in his evidence that P. W. 2 informed him that P. W. 1 had been raped by the accused. The doctor (P. W. 4) found one lacerated injury irregularly situated over the fourchette which according to him is possible by forceful penetration of penis. In my opinion, therefore, the trustworthy testimony of P. W. 1, the victim girl, gets full corroboration on material particulars from the aforesaid evidence and, therefore, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. 8. In the result, therefore, I would sustain the conviction of the petitioner. Coming to the question of sentence, considering the nature of the crime, the sentence cannot be said to be severe and does not require any interference. 8. In the result, therefore, I would sustain the conviction of the petitioner. Coming to the question of sentence, considering the nature of the crime, the sentence cannot be said to be severe and does not require any interference. In the ultimate result, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are sustained and the Criminal Revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed