JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - The Appellant stands convicted u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for having committed rape on Sabiria Mahali (P.W. 10), at the residential house of the co-accused Sayad Azad Anwar, who stood trial with the Appellant for abetment but was acquitted, by confining the victim from 3.00 P.M. to 10 P.M. The Appellant has also been convicted u/s 342 of the Code. While for the commission of the offence of rape, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, no separate sentence has been passed against him u/s 342 of the Code. 2. The prosecution sought to rely its case mainly on the evidence of the alleged victim (P.W. 10) and some statements said to have been made by her after the occurrence to some of her relations and the evidence of P.W. 4 who had been accompanying the victim at the relevant time when she was allegedly forcibly taken away and kept confined and raped. The medical evidence did not, in terms, support a case of rape. 3. Mr. R.P. Mohapatra, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has taken no through the evidence and has contended that the evidence of P.W. 10 is, by itself, unreliable and unacceptable and her evidence does not get assurance from any other trustworthy evidence. He has also invited my attention to the fact that on medical examination, no external injury was noticed either on the person of the victim or that of the Appellant. It has been contended that the case presented by the prosecution could not be accepted and that the Appellant had not committed sexual intercourse, as alleged. But if it is found by this Court that the Appellant did have any sexual intercourse with P.W. 10, it could not be without her consent. 4. If the evidence of the victim in a case of rape does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities-factor does not render unworthy of credence, as a general rule, no corroboration need be insisted except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. 4. If the evidence of the victim in a case of rape does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities-factor does not render unworthy of credence, as a general rule, no corroboration need be insisted except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. Corroboration may, however, be insisted upon where a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having made false accusation been of the instinct of self-preservation or when the probabilities-factor found to be out of tune. 5. It may also be kept in mind that absence of injuries on person of the aggresser or that the aggressed may not, by itself, be circumstance in each case militating against the theory of rape. Each case would depend upon its own facts and circumstances. In a case where consent has not been voluntarily given and there has been act of helpless resignation in the face of inevitable compulsion when the volitional faculty is crowded by fear, it cannot be said that they had given consent within the meaning of Section 375 of the Code. Consent on the part of a woman as a defence to an allegation of rape required voluntary participation after having fully exercised choice between resistance and assent. In a case of helpless resignation, injuries might not be caused either on the victim or the rapist. Absence of injuries however, may be taken to be a circumstance in favour of the accused while judging the probabilities of the case set up by the prosecution. 6. In the instant case, P.W. 10 was a married lady. Thus 51 was used to sexual intercourse. Although in her examination-in-chief, she had made a statement that she had been forcibly dragged by Appellant by gagging her mouth, this allegation was conspicuous its absence in her statement made in the course of investigation. The would tell its own tale and clearly indicate that if she had accompanied the Appellant inside any house, she had done so willingly and voluntarily. On her own showing, she had been confined in a house which was locked from outside for hours. The evidence would indicate that the house had been located in a busy locality with shops am other houses nearby. On her own showing, she had been confined in a house which was locked from outside for hours. The evidence would indicate that the house had been located in a busy locality with shops am other houses nearby. There is no evidence that her mouth had been gagged throughout. In such circumstances it would not appeal to common sense, much less to reason that she would not have raised, cry inside the house if she had been kept confined. 7. It is important to keep in mind that even P.W. 1 the husband of P.W. 10, has not testified that his wife has complained that the Appellant had committed rape on her. The charge was that the victim had been confined till about 10.00 p.m. The evidence of P.W. 10 was that the Appellant returned in the evening and thereafter committed rape on her twice. In that event, the victim could not have informed P.Ws. 2, 3 and some other persons in the evening time about the commission of rape on her. 8. The evidence of P.W. 4 was completely at variance with that of P.W. 10. As would appear from her evidence, the Appellant had requested her and P.W. 10 on the way to accompany him for taking tiffin and they accompanied him to a hotel near Durga Mandap and took tiffin there. According to this witness, after they entered a room, the Appellant fled away keeping that room under lock and key and sometime thereafter, he came and forcibly took away P.W. 10 threatening her at the point of knife. This was not the evidence of P.W. 10. As admitted by P.W. 4, she and P.W. 10 had not raised any alarm when she had been kept confined in the house. This was certainly inconsistent with ordinary human conduct and action. 9. P.W. 10 had testified that the Appellant had cleaned his penis by her wearing clothes. The wearing clothes had been examined chemically, but no discharge was found therein. 10. If, as deposed to by P.W. 10, the Appellant wanted to forcibly commit sexual intercourse, in the normal and natural course of events, she would have resisted in which case some injuries, minor though they might be would have been found on the person of the Appellant. The medical evidence shows neither the Appellant nor P.W. 10 had any injury. If, as deposed to by P.W. 10, the Appellant wanted to forcibly commit sexual intercourse, in the normal and natural course of events, she would have resisted in which case some injuries, minor though they might be would have been found on the person of the Appellant. The medical evidence shows neither the Appellant nor P.W. 10 had any injury. As earlier indicated, absence of injuries is not conclusive to establish a case of consent. At the same time, on the facts and in the circumstances appearing in the instant case, absence of injuries on P.W. 10 and the Appellant would be yet another factor which would go against the bona fides of the prosecution case. 11. Regard being had to the aforesaid Infirmities and improbabilities in the evidence, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted and very fairly so, that it cannot be said that the charges have been brought home to the Appellant. He has taken a fair stand which is well-founded in view of the improbabilities in the case of the prosecution as discussed above. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of conviction passed against the Appellant under Sections 376 am 342 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against him u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. If the Appellant is still in custody in connection with this case, he be set at liberty forthwith. Final Result : Allowed