JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 28.2.1980 for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. 2. The facts out of which the case arises are that Mst. Laxmi went to the fields for meeting the call of nature on 30th October, 1978 at about 6.03 P.M. in village Padola, which comes under the police station, Kumher and at that time the accused appellant came there and caught hold of her and committed rape upon her. According to her, her mouth was pressed by the accused and when the mouth was released, the shouted and the witnesses Bihari Lal, Devi Singh and Rajendra came there She went to her house and complained of the matter to her mother-in-law. Both went to the house of the appellant to inform his father about what the appellant had done, but were sent back. On the next day the husband and father-in law of the prosecutrix Laxmi came from the place of their postings and they were informed about the incident then the First Information Report was lodged at police station, Kumher on 31.10.78 at about 4.00 P.M. The prosecutrix Laxmi was examined by a Doctor who found abrasion on the left scapular region and besides this, there was multiple abrasions 1 cm to 2 cm x 1/4cm received on the posterior aspect of the right forearm lower one fourth, blackish in colour. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence produced in the case, was of the opinion that it is not necessary that there should be injury on the private parts of a grown up woman, if she had been raped by one man only and when the abrasion on the body of the prosecutrix could have caused due to the forcible intercourse with her, he was guilty. 4. Here it maybe mentioned that the age of the prosecutrix Laxmi is about 20 years and she is an health woman and the appellant has been able to show that her husband is not so healthy as she is. 5. 4. Here it maybe mentioned that the age of the prosecutrix Laxmi is about 20 years and she is an health woman and the appellant has been able to show that her husband is not so healthy as she is. 5. Before coming to the evidence in the case, I would like to draw attention to that part of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge where one of the reasons given by him, for holding that the case of the prosecution is proved, is that the appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. has not stated that he had sexual intercourse with Laxmi with her consent. In other words, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded on the plea that it was necessary for the accused to pelead the consent of the prosecutrix. This premise cannot be accepted as correct. In Pratap Mishra & ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 1307 . it has been held ` that it is open to the accused to prove his defence even from the circumstances proved in the case and that the accused is not bound by his pleadings." 6. First of all the learned council for the appellant has raised a plea that the F.I.R. was lodged alter delay of more than 24 hours and this makes the case of the prosecution week. As far as this aspect, is concerned, it can be said that the delay in the case has been explained to some extent because, the report was lodged only after the husband and father-in-law of the prosecutrix came to the village The case if found to be true otherwise, cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R. 7. Coming to the evidence about the actual occurrence, the learned counsel for the appellant has firstly contended that in absence of injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, the commission of rape in this case should not be believed. The other argument is about contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses and this I shall presently examine. 8. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a rule of law, but a precaution to be observed by the Court, before coming to the conclusion that the statement of prosecutrix deserves to be accepted. The other argument is about contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses and this I shall presently examine. 8. Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a rule of law, but a precaution to be observed by the Court, before coming to the conclusion that the statement of prosecutrix deserves to be accepted. When taking into consideration, the evidence in its totality including the circumstances for rejecting the testimony of the rape victim, if the evidence has a ring of truth then it may be possible to base the conviction even without corroboration of the evidence. There cannot be a general proposition that if there are no injuries on the body, specially on the private parts of the prosecutrix then the theory of rape has to be disbelieved. It will depend upon case to case whether the version of the prosecutrix inspires confidence or not. 9. In the present case, the statement is not only of the prosecutrix but of these other witnesses also out of whom two have turned hostile On the basis of statements of these four persons it has to be seen whether the case against the appellant stands proved or not This contention is also to be kept in mind that the prosecutrix is 20 years of age and a married women and the accused appellant, can from the circumstances, suggest that she was a consenting party to the act committed by the appellant 10. P.W. 4, Laxmi has stated that when she was sitting in the field, the appellant came there and first closed her mouth and then committed sexual intercourse with her and during this period he kept her mouth pressed It was when the act was over, that she pushed him and shouted and the appellant ran away from there. At that time Behari Lal, Devi Singh and Rajendra came there and she told that the appellant was running and he should be caught. She did not tell them that the appellant had committed rape upon her. Her explanation is that the three parsons had been the appellant committing rape upon her so it was not necessary to repeat it but this fact has not been supported by these three witnesses. In fact, P.W. 5, Vijay Singh and P.W. 7. She did not tell them that the appellant had committed rape upon her. Her explanation is that the three parsons had been the appellant committing rape upon her so it was not necessary to repeat it but this fact has not been supported by these three witnesses. In fact, P.W. 5, Vijay Singh and P.W. 7. Devi Singh have not supported the prosecution case and they have not been cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor P.W. 5, Vijay Singh has stated that he found Laxmi shouting and abusing and at that time the appellant also came there and said that Laxmi was making a false accusation against him. So also, P.W. 7, Devi Singh has stated that he met the appellant who told him that the daughter-in law of Suraj Pal was making false allegations against him. Then he found the wife and daughter-in-law of Suraj Pal abusing in front of the house of accused P.W. 6, Rajendra has stated that he heard the noise of a women weaping and shouting and he hurried towards that direction and saw that appellant tying his 'Panja' and found Laxmi shouting who told him that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. He himself did not see the commission of the crime and went away from there after a couple of minutes. None of the witnesses accompanied Laxmi. They went to their houses and Laxmi alone went to her house A woman who is raped cannot come to her house in a normal manner even after finding persons who could assist her in some manner There is no sign of any struggle offered by her because in that case, there would have been some injuries on her body. The multiple abrasions on the scapular region could have been caused in the normal course w ere the intercourse is with consent, on a rough surface P.W. 1, Badami. who is mother-in-law of the prosecutrix has tried to introduce that the clothes of Laxmi were torn but the same have not been produced A question has been put to the prosecutrix Laxmi that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her consent and though she has denied this, it cannot be said that the appellant has not taken a plea of consent of the prosecutrix. Her shouting, only after the act was completed, when some persons were visible, also supports the consent theory. Moreover. Her shouting, only after the act was completed, when some persons were visible, also supports the consent theory. Moreover. Laxmi herself admits that she did not tell the three witnesses who had come there that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her. This would hive been a first reaction if she was forced by the appellant. When the evidence in the case cannot be of a nature in the basis of which, the case against the accused appellant can be said to be beyond reasonable doubts than the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and in this case, he deserves the same. 11. In the result of above discussion, this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant is set-aside.Appeal allowed. *******