JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is preferred by the State against the order of discharge dated 8-2-1988 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. 2. Smt. Kamla lodged a report on 9-5-1986 alleging that on 8-5-1986 Madan came to her and she was taken by him on the pretext that be would get the payment made to her by the contractor under whom she used to work as the labourer. According to her she was taken to the river here she was pushed down on the ground by Madan Lal who committed sexual-intercourse forcibly on her Thereafter the other accused-persons arrived on the scene as they were biding themselves hereby and they also committed sexual intercourse with her one by-one. They she was made to drink something by which, she became unconscious. She has further alleged that the accused-persons repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with her throughout the night. Next day in the morning when the gained her senses she felt pain all over her body and sense of turning of her private part. She went to the Police Station and lodged a report. She was sent to the doctor for her medical examination and the doctor has given his report to the effect that rape has not been committed on her The doctor did not find any marks of violence on her body. The doctor further opined that the prosecutrix was habituated for sexual intercourse as she is married lady. After completing the investigation the Police submitted challan against these persons (respondents) under Section 376, IPC. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties does not find any prima facie case of rape against the accused-persons and he discharged them by the impugned order dated 8-2-1988. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that learned Sessions Judge has committed error in discharging the respondents. He admits that the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution but there is the statement of the prosecutrix Mst. Kamla and on the basis of this statement not only charge could be framed but, even a person can be convicted. 5. Considered the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the medical report. The medical report is totally against the prosecution story and the doctor has given very specific opinion that the lady being married was habituated for sexual intercourse and no rape has been committed on her. 5. Considered the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the medical report. The medical report is totally against the prosecution story and the doctor has given very specific opinion that the lady being married was habituated for sexual intercourse and no rape has been committed on her. The doctor did not find any injury on any part of her body. According to her statement 5 persons committed rape at a time one by one, then whole night they repeated the same act and further stated that she felt pain in her private part. This incident is of 8-5-1986 in the evening at about 7 p.m. and then whole night the act of sexual intercourse was repeated on her and her and in the morning she was examined by the doctor, but inspite of this the doctor did not find any injury on her private part. If five persons commit sexual intercourse with a lady without her consent forcibly and then repeat the same act throughout the night, it cannot be imagined that there would be no injury on any part of her body or even on the private part of the lady. There must be some swelling or laceration on the private part. Though the lady was habituated for intercourse, but the fact is that 5 persons repeatedly throughout the night committed intercourse with the lady. If it is taken that the statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict a person even without corroboration to her statement then there would be no end to convict and sentence a person for this offence. It will be easy for the court to convict a person merely on the allegation by a lady before the Court that she has been raped by such and such person. Law does not say that the bare statement of prosecutrix is sufficient to convict a person for the offence of rape. Law says that the statement of that lady is to be scrutinised carefully and if there is any corroboration to the statement then on the solitary statement of the lady a person can be convicted for the offence of rape. I do not agree with the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor. Law says that the statement of that lady is to be scrutinised carefully and if there is any corroboration to the statement then on the solitary statement of the lady a person can be convicted for the offence of rape. I do not agree with the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor. The statement of the lady is not of sterling worth but I could say to this extent that this statement is a farce and bogus end on the basis of such statement when the Police know that the medical report is in negative and has not supported the prosecution, I pity on the brain of the Investigating Officer who made out a case under Section 376 and submitted challan against these 5 persons. Such Investigating Agencies are responsible for making huge burden with such bogus and absurd cases. This is not a case at all for framing the charge. There is nothing except to spend our time to think over the correctness of the prosecution story. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error but he has rightly and correctly appreciated the statement and found that no prima facie case is made out against the accused-persons. He has correctly passed the order by discharging the accused-respondents, I agree and confirm the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. 6. There is no substance in the revision petition and it is, therefore dismissed. *******