Judgment : 1. The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.52 of 1985 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Thiruvallur. He stands convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec.376, I.P.C. This appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 2. The succinct facts leading to the filing of this appeal are: The accused is a resident of Vallur, which is within the jurisdiction of Minjur Police Station. P.W.2 victim girl, is a resident of Madras. She went to Vallur Village during summer vacation, where her grandfather P.W.1 resides. 3. On 27.5.1984 her grandmother went to the fields to keep a watch and prevent the standing crops from being grazed by stray cattle. At about 2 P.M. she went to the field to relieve her grandmother. While she was all alone, the accused was stated to have gone there and raped her, despite all resistance emerging from her. Thereafter, she returned home weeping and narrated the sequence of events that had happened to P.W.1. At that time, P.W.3, a resident of the same village, was stated to be conversing with P.W.1 in his house. 4. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with the victim girl P.w.2 went to Minjur Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 report to P.W.10 the Sub Inspector of Police, who in turn, registered the case at 17.25 hrs. in Crime No.131 of 1984 for the alleged offence under Sec.376, I.P.C., against the accused and took up further investigation. He seized M.O.1 Jatti and M.O.2 skirt of P.W.2 under Ex.P-2 mahazar attested by P.W.4. He sent P.W.2 to Government Hospital at Ponneri. 5. P.W.9, the doctor attached to the said hospital examined and treated her for the injuries and issued Ex,P-11 wound certificate. P.W.9 referred P.W.2 to Government Stanley Hospital, Madras, for ascertaining her age and further report as to injuries sustained by her. 6. P.W.5, Professor of Forensic Medicine attached to the said hospital examined her and issued Ex.P-3 certificate opining that she was above 12, but below 14 years of age. She also examined her for the injuries she was stated to have sustained and issued Ex.P-4 certificate stating that she did not find any injury on her person and further that she could not have had any sexual intercourse with anyone recently. 7. She also examined her for the injuries she was stated to have sustained and issued Ex.P-4 certificate stating that she did not find any injury on her person and further that she could not have had any sexual intercourse with anyone recently. 7. P.W.10 was stated to have arrested the accused on 28.-51984 at 7 P.M., and brought him to the police station at 7.20 P.M. He seized from him M.O.3 Lungi and M.O.4 Jatti under Ex.P-6 mahazar attested by P.W.7. He sent him to Court for remand the next day. 8. On 1.6.1984, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri sent the accused to Government Stanley Hospital for his examination and report. P.W.6 Assistant Police Surgeon and Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Stanley Medical College, Madras, examined the accused on 2.6.1984 and issued Ex.P-5 certificate opining that there is nothing to suggest that he was impotent. He further stated that he found on his right leg a sutured wound and that he was limping slightly on the right side. 9. P.W.10 sent a requisition under Ex.P-7 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri on 29.5.1984 for sending the incriminating material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis. P.W.8 then headclerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri as per orders of learned Magistrate, sent the incriminating material objects to the Chemical Examiner, under the Original of Ex.P-10 office copy of the letter. Exs.P-8 and P-9 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. 10. After completing the formalities of the investigation, the successor Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.11 laid the final report against the accused before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri on 27.12.1984 for the aforesaid offence against the accused. 11. Upon committal, learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur framed a charge against the accused for an offence under Sec.376, I.P.C. The accused, when questioned as respects the charge framed against him, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 12. The prosecution in a bid to prove its case examined P.Ws.1 to 11, filed Exs.P-1 to P-11 and marked M.Os.1 to 4. 13. The accused when examined as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. 12. The prosecution in a bid to prove its case examined P.Ws.1 to 11, filed Exs.P-1 to P-11 and marked M.Os.1 to 4. 13. The accused when examined as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He would further state, that one Santosham, the uncle of the victim girl inflicted a cut injury on his leg on the day of the occurrence and when he went to Minjur Police Station for giving a report he had been apprehended and the case had been foisted against him. 14. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed before him and upon hearing the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec.376, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced him, as above, giving rise to the present appeal. 15. Learned counsel, Mrs.Bhagirathi Rangarajan, appointed by the Tamil Nadu Legal Aid Board, to defend the accused in this appeal, would submit that the materials available on record are so scanty and meagre, besides bristling with infirmities and inherent improbabilities and material contradictions, thereby pointing out that all is not well with the case of the prosecution and in such a situation, it is not proper to fasten or mulct criminal liability upon the accused as had been done by the Court below and that he is to be given the benefit of reasonable doubt. 16. Learned Government Advocate would however repel such a submission. 17. No doubt true it is that the offence of rape, if committed by anyone, has to be viewed with all seriousness and deterrent punishment has to be imposed, inasmuch as such an offence is a social evil inflicted upon vulnerable section of the humanity, namely, women in the set-up of a society that we have, where male chauvinism predominates in all walks of life. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that to invoke the wrath of the penal provisions as adumbrated under Sec.376, I.P.C, the prosecution has to place all such materials, so as to clinchingly prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in such a hazardous task in this case. 18. P.W.2, the victim girl, admittedly hails from Madras and is quite a stranger to the inhabitants of Vallur village. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the prosecution had succeeded in such a hazardous task in this case. 18. P.W.2, the victim girl, admittedly hails from Madras and is quite a stranger to the inhabitants of Vallur village. Though P.W.2 used to come to her grandfathers house for spending the vacation, yet it is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 knew very well the accused. In such a situation, it is not known as to how the accused had been fixed upon as a ravisher of the victim girl, at the time when P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 to P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police. Acursory perusal of Ex.P-1 would not at all furnish any clue or detail as to accused being the ravisher of the victim girl. It reveals as if the victim girl, P.W.2, stated to P.W.1 that she was ravished by the accused, in the sense of herself furnishing his name. The cat has come out of the bag, in the sense of exposing the lacuna of the case of the prosecution on this aspect of the matter, when P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined in Court. P.W.2 hadcategorically stated in the opening part of her chief-examination that she did not at all know the name of the accused. She would again depose that she has shown the accused in the evening to her grandfather P.W.1, while he was playing football in the maidan in the village as the person who ravished her. The evidence of P.W.3 reveals that the victim girl P.W.2 was found weeping immediately after the occurrence and at that time when she was questioned as to what had happened, she narrated the events and also pointed out the accused there, just coming towards the maidan as the person who ravished her. This aspect of the case, as already adverted to, was not at all found mentioned in the earliest version Ex.P-1,whichon the Contrary mentions as if the accused was known to the victim girl P.W.2 previously and she had furnished his name to P.W.1 enabling him to lodge the first information. 19. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that immediately after the occurrence P.W.2 victim girl came and reported the occurrence to him while he was in the house conversing with P.W.3. 19. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that immediately after the occurrence P.W.2 victim girl came and reported the occurrence to him while he was in the house conversing with P.W.3. The evidence of the victim girl P.W.2, on the contrary would reveal that immediately after the occurrence she was staying in the field weeping and at that time, P.W.1 came to the field and ascertaining the reason for her weeping and in such a situation, she narrated the sequence of events to him. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 assumes importance in the light of P.W.2 victim girl reporting the occurrence immediately to them and though they were not eye witnesses to the occurrence, their evidence becomes legally admissible’ piece of evidence as res gestae. On the face of the bristling material contradictions, as to where P.W.2 narrated the occurrence to P.Ws.1 and 3, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 cannot at all be given any weight and credence so as to give a face-lift to the case of the prosecution. 20. As such, there remains the solitary testimony of P.W.2, the victim of rape for the alleged offence of rape. Regard being had to the common course of natural events and human conduct, the testimony of other witnesses, excepting the victim of rape in such a situation cannot at all be expected. There is no thing wrong to fasten or mulct criminal liability upon anyone accused of an offence placing reliance on the testimony of a solitary witness, provided the same is not suffering from any serious infirmity and inherent improbability. The question for consideration, in the case on hand, is as to whether the evidence of P.W.2 is free from all such blemishes so as to fasten criminal liability upon the accused. In the analysis of the evidence of P.W.2, it has to be taken into account the defence of the accused. The theory of the defence need at all be proved in the manner expected of from the prosecution. It is well-nigh possible for the defence to bring out certain circumstnaces making it probable that the theory of the defence cannot at all be ruled out of consideration. The theory of the defence need at all be proved in the manner expected of from the prosecution. It is well-nigh possible for the defence to bring out certain circumstnaces making it probable that the theory of the defence cannot at all be ruled out of consideration. As already adverted to, admittedly the specific case of the accused is that he was cut by one Santosham, the uncle of the victim girl on the day of occurrence on his leg and while he went to the Police Station for giving a report, he was apprehended by the Police and a case had been foisted on him. 21. The evidence of P.W.2, the victim girl, cannot at all be expected to commend acceptance, on the face of the medical testimony available on record. No doubt true it is that the doctor P.W.9 happened to examine the victim girl on the day of the occurrence and found certain minimal abrasions on her nose, lip and lower part of private parts, as disclosed by the evidence of P.W.9. But the doctor P.W.9 did not at all find any other injuries on the person of the victim girl. It is not as if she had been raped without there being any resistance offered. The consistent case of the prosecution is that despite all resistance, she was brutally raped by the accused. In such a situation, it is but natural for the victim girl to have sustained certain injuries on her back when especially the place, where the occurrence took place was the field. Further, no injury was traceable on her breast and the chest region of her body. It is but natural, in such a situation, she would have sustained certain nail marks or bruises on her chest region. The absence of such injuries on her person is an indication that the occurrence, as narrated by the victim girl, was rather a bleak possibility. 22. The other doctor P.W.5, who examined her, of course after three days, of the occurrence, did not find a trace or mark of any sort of injury stated to have been sustained by her as found by the doctor, P.W.9. Her categorical assertion was that she did not find any injury or symptom of an injury having sustained by her. She would further state that her hymen was in tact. Her categorical assertion was that she did not find any injury or symptom of an injury having sustained by her. She would further state that her hymen was in tact. This apart, she did not find any sort of an inflammation or other signs in the vaginal passage pointing out herself being subjected to any sort of sexual intercourse with anyone whatever recently. 23. The evidence of the doctor, P.W.6 who happened to examine the accused coupled with the certificate Ex.P-5 he issued, would reveal that smegma of his penis was found in tact. That is clearly an indication of his not having any sort of sexual intercourse recently. 24. There is also another disturbing or disquieting feature in the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.10 would point out that the accused had been taken into custody only on 28.5.1984, i.e., the next day of the occurrence at 7 P.M. The evidence of P.W.7 even in chief examination, would point out that the accused had been taken into custody and brought to the Police Station on the day of the occurrence itself and the clothes he wore, namely, M.Os.3 and 4 were seized under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-6. Further, the evidence of the doctor, P.W.6 who examined the accused, points out that the accused was having a cut injury, of course sutured, on his right leg. The further agonizing factor is that even the remand report available in the records would point out the accused having a cut injury on his leg. At what point of time and at whose instance, the cut injury on his leg was sutured, is not at all known. But one thing is certain that the accused was having a cut injury on his leg. It is also to be taken note of that the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.10 did not at all send him to the hospital for treatment of his injuries and he simply sent him for remand to the Court and it was only at the instance of the Court, the accused had been sent to the hospital for treatment. It is also to be taken note of that the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.10 did not at all send him to the hospital for treatment of his injuries and he simply sent him for remand to the Court and it was only at the instance of the Court, the accused had been sent to the hospital for treatment. In such state of affairs, the theory of the defence that the accused was cut by Santosham, the uncle of the victim on the day of the occurrence and that when he went to the police station to give a report against him, the case has been foisted against him (accused) cannot at all be ruled out of consideration. 25. In view of what has been stated above, it goes without saying that the case of the prosecution is suffering from serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities, besides suffering from material contradictions and it is not possible to fasten criminal liability upon the accused, as had been done by the Court below and consequently, he has to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed the conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted. The fine amount, if any paid, is ordered to be refunded to him.