JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :—The appellant is an accused in the Sessions Case No. 40 of 1989. He has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Margao, for an offence of rape punishable under section 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default to undergo 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment. 2. It appears that on 9-9-1989 the complainant Miss Shoona Burd who is a British National and has come to Goa as a tourist along with a friend by name Susan Wallwork, was staying in Room No. 33 of 'Colmar' Hotel at Colva. The appellant Ahmed Shaikh Hussain Ibrahim who is a Somali National was also putting up in Colva in another Hotel by name 'Vincy' Hotel. It is said that on the night of 9th to 10th September, 1989, when the complainant after dinner went to her room at Colmar Hotel, the appellant who was standing behind her when the door of the room was opened suddenly pushed her inside the room and wielding a knife threatened to kill her in case she raised any alarm. Thereupon the door of the room was locked from inside and the appellant under threats with a knife ordered the complainant to undress and made her to lay down on one of the cots of the room. Thereupon the said appellant forcibly maintained sexual intercourse with the complainant by saying that in case she shouts she would be killed. After maintaining sexual intercourse the appellant proposed to the complainant that they should go both to the room of his Hotel to which the complainant agreed since this should give her an opportunity to run away and to get rid from the appellant's clutches. Thereupon when they both left the room and climbed down the staircase the appellant stumbled down near the gate and at that time the complainant ran away from him and shouted for help rushing towards the room of one British National who was at that time talking to her room mate Susan Wallwork. On the basis of these facts charge was framed against the appellant under section 376 of I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty. 3. On the basis of these facts charge was framed against the appellant under section 376 of I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty. 3. The case of the appellant is of a simple denial and it has been alleged by him that the complainant was not even present in Goa on the day of the purported incident. However, the learned Sessions Judge after recording the evidence found the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly. 4. During the course of the trial 10 witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 4 is the complainant Shoona Burd who has stated that on 8-9-1989 when she was moving with a friend at the market place of Colva she saw the appellant at the window of a room of a Hotel existing therein. While she was talking to a gentleman in the market in respect of a bag that she wanted to sell, the appellant proposed to purchase the said bag. Accordingly the price was settled at Rs. 100/- and the bag was sold to him. The man to whom she was talking first offered to take the bag to the appellant who sent the money after some time. On the next day, i.e., on 9th September, 1989 she saw the appellant again at about 1.00 p.m. in the residence known as 'Sunset Cafe' where he was sitting and having a drink. He came near her and asked whether she would like to have a drink with him on the same evening. However, she refused to oblige the appellant. He went back to his place but after having lunch when she and her friend Susan had been to the beach she again saw the appellant sitting at a distance of about 20 metres from them. After sometime, at about 3.00 p.m., she returned alone to the Cafe. There the appellant accosted her again and requested her to take a drink with him. She refused this offer again. Thereupon she returned to the beach and after sometime came to Sunset Cafe along with Susan to have a drink. Then for the third time the appellant approached them and asked whether they would have a drink with him. She simply ignored the appellant and left the place to take some photographs. She refused this offer again. Thereupon she returned to the beach and after sometime came to Sunset Cafe along with Susan to have a drink. Then for the third time the appellant approached them and asked whether they would have a drink with him. She simply ignored the appellant and left the place to take some photographs. Thereafter she went to the beach and on returning to the Hotel took some rest and thereafter went to dinner along with Susan and another friend by name Paul Goldrin. They came back to the Hotel by about 11.40 p.m. Then all three chitchatted for about 5 minutes and then she decided to go to her room. Paul and Susan went towards Room No. 6 wherein Paul was staying in the same Hotel, while she went to the watchman and asked him to open the door giving access to the first floor where the room which she was sharing with Susan was situated. Then she saw the appellant coming near the watchman and speaking to him. However she could not hear what he was saying to the watchman. After the watchman opened the door she climbed the stair-case and when she was going to open the door of her room she noticed the appellant who was standing behind her. The appellant asked her whether he could come inside the room and when she answered in the negative he again requested her to allow him into the room. She refused to oblige him for the second time. At this stage as she was feeling that she was being threatened she decided to close the room and return to Room No. 6 where her friends were and it was at that time that the appellant pushed her into the room. She saw the appellant picking up a knife from behind with a blade of about 10 inches long. She had turned the lights on when she locked the door of her room but the appellant pointing a knife to her after she was pushed inside the room put off the lights. Thereupon the appellant took the knife her throat and at the same time threatened her saying that in case she made some noise she would be killed. He then gave slaps across her face and again threatened to kill her in case she shouts. Thereupon the appellant took the knife her throat and at the same time threatened her saying that in case she made some noise she would be killed. He then gave slaps across her face and again threatened to kill her in case she shouts. He gave two slaps more and she fell on the bed. Then the appellant put on the light and spat on her face. He told her to keep quite and not to move as otherwise she would be killed. Then he ordered her to remove her clothes and under fear she removed her clothes. At that time she was wearing T-Shirt, long pants, underwear and brassier. She removed all the clothes. Then the appellant kept on spitting on her face and he ordered her to lie down. Thereupon he removed his own clothes and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him and told her that before that he had already killed 7 people and that she would be the 8th. The whole incident lasted for about 10 minutes. Then the appellant while still on top of her told her that she should go with him to his room. She agreed as she thought that this would provide her an opportunity to escape from him. Then he got up and she also stood up. She put her T-shirt on and wrapped some clothes around her waist. The appellant also dressed himself. He then asked to take along with them her bag pack. He also warned her not to tell anybody about what had happened in her room as otherwise she would be killed. At this stage she saw him removing the knife from beneath the mattress of the bed. She then proposed the appellant that he himself would take the clothes bag with her belongings. The appellant agreed and she then put the bag on his back and she tied the strap around his waist with a knot in such a manner that the knife which in the meantime he has put inside his pants could not be removed. Then the appellant told her to unlock the door of the room and both came out. He got down the staircase and the appellant followed her. She called the night watchman who was downstairs to open the door leading to the staircase. The watchman came and opened the door. Then the appellant told her to unlock the door of the room and both came out. He got down the staircase and the appellant followed her. She called the night watchman who was downstairs to open the door leading to the staircase. The watchman came and opened the door. She came out of the door and the appellant followed her but on the threshold of the door he stumbled and fell against the door. At that time she started running towards the Room No. 6 and screaming. She shouted for Susan who came running towards her. Paul also came and she told them to enter Paul's room. They all entered the room and she asked them to lock it from inside. She then narrated to them what had happened. Immediately Paul left the room saying that he was going to call the police. He returned after about 45 minutes later and told them he had to go to the Tourist Complex to do the phone call to the police. After an hour later one policeman came to the room and Paul told him what had happened. The policeman left saying that he would return and about one hour later two or three policeman came to the Hotel. She told them what had happened. Thereupon the policemen left the room saying that they would come later. They came only at about 6.00 a.m. They informed them that the appellant had been caught. The policemen asked them to go to the police station and put them in the jeep. The appellant was also in the jeep. They were first taken to Colva Police Station and from there to the police station of Margao wherein her statement was recorded. The appellant identified Exhibit 15 as being the complaint lodged by her and which bears her signature. Thereupon at about 1.00 p.m. the police took her to the Hospital at Panaji where she was examined by one Doctor. Then she was taken to another Hospital for doing blood test. 5. This statement of the complainant was fully supported by the deposition of P.W. 3 Susan Wallwork who has narrated in detail all the facts connected with the presence of the appellant at Colva on 8th and 9th September, 1989 and during which time he approached them at Sunset Cafe and requested to take drinks with him. 5. This statement of the complainant was fully supported by the deposition of P.W. 3 Susan Wallwork who has narrated in detail all the facts connected with the presence of the appellant at Colva on 8th and 9th September, 1989 and during which time he approached them at Sunset Cafe and requested to take drinks with him. She also referred to the appellant having purchased prior to that a bag belonging to the complainant for the price of Rs. 100. She also mentioned the fact that on 9th September after dinner she along with the complainant and Paul came back to the Hotel at about 11.40 p.m. and after chitchatting for a few minutes at the entrance the complainant told them that she was tired and was going to sleep and that saying so she went to her room while Paul and herself went to Paul's room and continued talking. It was while they were talking for about 25 minutes outside Paul's room when she heard the complainant screaming and calling for her name. She looked towards the entrance giving access to the first floor where the room which she and the complainant were sharing is situated. She then started walking at a fast pace towards the complainant and saw her coming out from the same entrance and running towards her. She was hysterical and was crying. She could make out that she was very upset. She continued running towards Paul's room and told them both to enter the room and lock it from inside. Once the room was locked the complainant informed them that she had been raped by a man to whom she had sold the bag on the previous day and who was the appellant, while she was in her room. She further told them that the appellant had entered her room and had threatened her with a knife before he raped her. Immediately thereafter Paul opened the door and went out to call the police. He returned half an hour later and told them he could not make the call. After sometime the police came and took them to the police station where a complaint was lodged. From the police station he was taken to the Doctor for examination where her blood test was also done. 6. P.W. 2 Jaidev Aryavapa is the receptionist of the Hotel Colmar. After sometime the police came and took them to the police station where a complaint was lodged. From the police station he was taken to the Doctor for examination where her blood test was also done. 6. P.W. 2 Jaidev Aryavapa is the receptionist of the Hotel Colmar. He also stated that on the night of 9-9-1989 when he was sleeping in his room he heard somebody crying. When he came out from the room the complainant and Paul were out of the Room No. 6. At this time the complainant was crying and this was at about 0.30 hours. When he asked as to what had happened Paul told that somebody had beaten her. Paul then asked him to open the reception room because he wanted to put a phone call to the police. He told him that the phone was under lock by the Manager. Thereupon he went back to his room and slept. At about 2.00 a.m. the watchman knocked at the door and told that the police wanted to talk to him. He came out and when the police asked him whether he knew anything about the attempt made to the complainant in the room he answered in the negative. Then the police told him to go back to his room. He went back to sleep. 7. P.W. 5 Eulalio rodrigues is the Clerk working in the Vincy Hotel. He also stated that he knows the appellant who had booked in their Hotel on 8-9-1989. He gave his name as Ahmed Shaikh Hussein Ibrahim and was given Room No. 22. On the night of 9th to 10th September, 1989, at about 0.30 hours of 10-9-1989, the watchman called him. When he came out he was told that the appellant wanted to leave. The appellant was near the watchman. The appellant told him at that time that he was checking out as he wanted to go to some other place. He told the appellant that he could go. Thereafter the appellant left the Hotel and he went back to his room. Before going away the appellant handed over the key of the room. 8. P.W. 6 Jose Gomes is the Manager of Colmar Hotel. In his deposition he has stated that on 10-9-1989 at about 6.00 p.m. the police came to his Hotel and he accompanied them for a panchanama in the room occupied by the complainant. Before going away the appellant handed over the key of the room. 8. P.W. 6 Jose Gomes is the Manager of Colmar Hotel. In his deposition he has stated that on 10-9-1989 at about 6.00 p.m. the police came to his Hotel and he accompanied them for a panchanama in the room occupied by the complainant. In the room there were two beds for guests. In one of the beds he saw blood stains and two cuts on the bed at the either side of the pillow. The cust were done not only on the bed-sheet but also went on deep into the mattress beneath the bed-sheet. On the other bed there was one brassiere. Thereupon a panchanama was drawn and the bed-sheet as well as the pillow case was attached on that occasion. 9. P.W. 7 Vithaldas Hegde is a panch witness who was present when the clothes of the appellant were attached by the police at Margao Police Station. At that time one overcoat of black colour, one shirt of light blue colour and a banian were removed from his body and attached by the police under a panchanama. 10. P.W 8 Dr. M.S. Usgaonkar is a Lecturer in the Forensic Medicine of Goa Medical College who examined both the complainant as well as the appellant on 10-9-1989. On examination he did not find any blood or semen nor bruises or abrasions on the complainant's genitals. He also found that there were no positive signs of any recent forcible sexual intercourse although the presence of old healed hymenal tears was suggestive of previous penetration. There were no injuries on the body of the complainant. He however stated that he was not in a position to exclude any case of rape because there could have been possible intercourse with the complainant although there was no recent tear of her hymen. As far as the appellant is concerned he found some superficial lacerations and abrasions on his body which appeared to have been caused by hard and blunt object and they were less than 24 hours of duration at the time of examination. On examination of her genital organs he found no bruises or abrasions in that area, nor stains nor lacerations. He then opined that in the absence of any positive signs for recent forceful sexual intercourse he was unable to give any opinion to that effect. On examination of her genital organs he found no bruises or abrasions in that area, nor stains nor lacerations. He then opined that in the absence of any positive signs for recent forceful sexual intercourse he was unable to give any opinion to that effect. After examining both the complainant and the appellant he stated that as the vagina was permitting the entry of two fingers there was still a possibility of there having been a sexual intercourse between both and that the non-existence of semen in the swabs prepared by him could be explained by the possibility of both the parties having washed their private arts before being brought for examination. 11. P.W. 10 Arvind Gawas is the P.S.I. incharge of Colva Police Station on the date of the incident. He has stated that on 10-9-1989 at about 1.45 a.m. while he was sleeping at his residence at Margao, A.S.I. Mashelkar and a police constable knocked at his door and informed him that there has been a rape case at Colva and his presence was required at the police station. On the way he was told that the incident had taken place at the Hotel Colmar and that he had received a telephone call in this respect. He went immediately to Hotel Colmar. He met the complainant who told him that she had been raped on that very night. There were two other foreigners in her company being one boy and one girl. Their names were Susan and Paul. He requested them to come to the police station where a complaint was lodged. In her statement she has given a detailed description of the appellant though she did not know his name. With these details he directed his subordinates to search the rapist and also flashed messages to all Out-Posts requesting them by giving description of the man and requesting them to detain him in case he is likely to cross the border. He also alerted the existing four control vehicles manned by the Police who usually are on patrol duty throughout the territory of Goa. At about 3.30 a.m. he received an information that the man corresponding to the description given by the complainant was putting up at Vincy Hotel, Colva. He also alerted the existing four control vehicles manned by the Police who usually are on patrol duty throughout the territory of Goa. At about 3.30 a.m. he received an information that the man corresponding to the description given by the complainant was putting up at Vincy Hotel, Colva. He immediately went to the Hotel and was informed by one of its employees that the man corresponding to the said description had been staying in the Hotel but had left on the same night at 0.30 hours. Thereupon he was shown the register of the Hotel and he got his name and identity. As he had left the Hotel not long before he suspected that he might be still moving at Colva or neighbouring area and therefore he directed the staff to patrol that area in search of the appellant. At 6.30 a.m. the appellant was found near Lactancia Hotel close to Hotel Silver Sands. He was standing there with some pieces of luggage and appeared that he was waiting for some lift or some conveyance. He made him to sit in his jeep and took him to the police station by overpowering the resistance which he attempted to put when he was directed to board the jeep. When the complainant saw the appellant in the jeep where he was sitting which also took her to the police station she immediately recognised and identified him as the man who had raped her on the previous night. Thereupon both the complainant and the appellant were sent to the Goa Medical College Hospital for examination and they also went to Colva where he drew the panchanama of the scene of offence. In the room occupied by the complainant he noticed that in one of the beds there were two cuts on the bed-sheet near the pillow and the cuts were going down through the mattress. During the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted that he was occupying a room in the Hotel Vincy at Colva and that on the night of 9th to 10th of September, 1989, at 0.30 hours, he checked out from the Hotel. He however explained that he left the Hotel and told the watchman that he was leaving at that time because some people were making a lot of noise near the room and he could not sleep. 12. He however explained that he left the Hotel and told the watchman that he was leaving at that time because some people were making a lot of noise near the room and he could not sleep. 12. Shri Kolkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended firstly that the complainant prosecutix's evidence is not at all corroborated and what P.W. 3 Susan stated in this Court is hearsay evidence which was narrated to her by the complainant herself. He has further submitted that as far as the medical evidence is concerned there was no evidence of rape since no injuries or semen were found by the doctor on the genital organs of both the complainant and the appellant. The doctor's opinion was also in the sense that there was no sign of any recent sexual intercourse between the complainant and the appellant. The learned Counsel urged that there was no evidence not only about sexual intercourse except the statement of the complainant but also there was no evidence of actual penetration of the appellant's penis in the complainant's vagina. Further not a single person has seen the appellant going to the complainant's room on that night and the only person who could have spoken of this fact was the watchman who was not examined by the prosecution. Shri Kholkar further urged that there was also no evidence apart from the statement of the complainant that she had been forcefully made to accept sexual intercourse by the appellant under threats of a knife was not even recovered by the police. There is also evidence on record, besides the statement of the complainant herself, to show that her consent to maintain sexual intercourse with the appellant has been obtained forcibly. 13. We are unable, however, to find any substance in all these submissions of the appellant's learned Counsel. In this respect Mr. Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor, has referred to the unimpeachable evidence which has come from the very mouth of the complainant herself who is the prosecutrix in this case and who has narrated the whole incident with utmost detail and which evidence was not shaken by the appellant during his cross-examination. In this respect Mr. Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor, has referred to the unimpeachable evidence which has come from the very mouth of the complainant herself who is the prosecutrix in this case and who has narrated the whole incident with utmost detail and which evidence was not shaken by the appellant during his cross-examination. We have gone through the complainant's evidence and we are also of the opinion, as otherwise pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, that throughout her examination the complainant has deposed sincerely and described minutely the facts so as to leave no doubt about its veracity and genuineness. 14. The circumstance of this evidence having gone unchallenged has also cautioned us to scrutinize her evidence with utmost care. But we are at the same time satisfied that the fact of the complainant's deposition having not been challenged by the appellant cannot be said as having caused any real prejudice to the appellant. 15. The appellant was given more than sufficient opportunity to effectively defend himself. From the very beginning the learned Sessions Judge appointed a lawyer to defend him during his trial and to assist him with his legal advice. However, the appellant chose to reject the offer made by the learned Sessions Judge and declined to be assisted by the advocate who was appointed for him. To be noted also that the record discloses that inspite of this the learned Sessions Judge has been throughout very concerned and anxious to see that irrespective of the fact that no lawyer was attending the appellant during the recording of the prosecution evidence the appellant still should be sufficiently alerted and given all opportunities to defend himself. No doubt that the learned Sessions Judge has strictly followed all the rules of prudence in this case. He permitted the appellant himself to personally cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses and even when the appellant went on asking questions to the complainant which appeared to be irrelevant as far as she was concerned since the same were relating to the other witnesses he was told by the learned Sessions Judge that those questions should be put to the respective witnesses. He was then guided by the learned Sessions Judge even at this stage. He was then guided by the learned Sessions Judge even at this stage. On various occasions the learned Session Judge went out of his way to give to the appellant opportunities to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses which he generally declined to do although he has put one or two questions to the complainant and to the Investigating Officer. We have, therefore, to see that whatever evidence was brought on record by the complainant remained unrebutted on the basis of lack of substantial cross-examination or denial on the part of the appellant. This by itself shows that the evidence of the prosecutrix in this case could not be shaken by the appellant who alone is to be blamed for having thus contributed with his conduct to help establishing the prosecution case against him. No further corroboration would be required in this case to support the evidence made out by the prosecutrix herself. 16. In the case of (Rafiq v. State of Uttar Pradesh)1, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 559, which is also dealing with a case of rape under section 376 of the I.P.C. it has been held that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Same observation holds good regarding presence or absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed. The Court has also stressed on the fact that indeed from place to place, from age to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of law in this area be introduced through a new type of precendential tyranny. They took note that no woman of honour would accuse another of rape since while doing so she sacrifices thereby what is dearest to her. Therefore they could not cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative testimony. 17. In the case of (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)2, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 753, it has been again reiterated by the Supreme Court that apart from the testimony of the prosecutrix corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. 17. In the case of (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)2, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 753, it has been again reiterated by the Supreme Court that apart from the testimony of the prosecutrix corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. It has been further held that on principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to greater weight absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eyewitness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence could not be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities-factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence. 18. In another case of (Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar)3, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 911, the Supreme Court has again held that when the conviction is based on the evidence of a prosecutrix without any corroboration it will not be illegal on that sole ground. Whenever corroboration is necessary it should be from an independent source but it is not necessary that every part of the evidence of the victim should be confirmed in every detail by independent evidence. The Court held in that case that the statement made by the complainant to her husband immediately after the incident is admissible under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act and has a corroborative value. 19. In the instant case we have seen that the nature of the act itself could make it impossible to obtain corroboration in all details especially in respect of the act of sexual intercourse. However, the learned Sessions Judge sought corroboration also on circumstantial evidence as available on all material points. 19. In the instant case we have seen that the nature of the act itself could make it impossible to obtain corroboration in all details especially in respect of the act of sexual intercourse. However, the learned Sessions Judge sought corroboration also on circumstantial evidence as available on all material points. In this respect the evidence of P.W. 3 Susan Wallwork is no doubt corroborating the deposition of the prosecutrix to the effect that she states having seen about 25 minutes, after she left her and Paul's company to go to sleep, the complainant screaming and rushing towards their direction from the side of the entrance of the staircase leading to her room crying hysterically and complaining that she had been raped by a man who she described as the same person to whom she had sold the bag in the previous night thus identifying the rapist. She also narrated to her and to paul once they entered the letter's room the details of the whole incident and informed them that she had been raped by him under the threats of the knife. None of these averments made by Susan in her deposition were denied or challenged by the appellant in cross-examination. Further we have seen that the evidence of the panch witness P.W. 6 Jose Faria as well as the Investigating Officer P.W. 10 Arwind Gawas show that the bed-sheet and the mattress of one of the beds of room occupied by the complainant and wherein the alleged rape took place were showing signs of stabbing cuts which facts suggests that a knife had been used by appellant on that day as a threatening device while sexually assaulting the complainant. There is also medical evidence which although is not that conclusive to establish the fact of any recent sexual intercourse shows, however, that the doctor who examined both the complainant and the appellant has not ruled out the possibility of such sexual act having been committed by the appellant with the complainant. The fact that no vestiges of semen were found on the genital organs of both the complainant and appellant has also been explained due to the circumstance that the medical examination was done after about 13 hours from the time of the alleged incident and therefore in all probabilities both might have washed in meantime their respective genital regions. The fact that no vestiges of semen were found on the genital organs of both the complainant and appellant has also been explained due to the circumstance that the medical examination was done after about 13 hours from the time of the alleged incident and therefore in all probabilities both might have washed in meantime their respective genital regions. Hence the nature of the medical evidence cannot be said as being in favour of the appellant so much so the doctor has also suggested that it appears that there was a previous penetration in the complainant's vagina while in respect of a recent sexual intercourse he was not in a position to say anything positive due to the fact that no signs of semen or fresh injuries were found in the genital organs of both the complainant and the appellant. 20. Further the circumstance that an assault of sexual nature had occurred in the Hotel Colmar on the night of 9-8-1989 and involving the very complainant is also corroborated not only by the deposition of P.W. 2 Jaidev who said that on hearing on that night somebody crying outside the room at about 0.30 hours he wake up and came out and then saw the complainant crying, that paul told him that she had been beaten, that thereafter, at about 2.00 p.m., he was again awakened by the watchman because the police had come there, that the police inquired from him as to whether he knew anything about the attempt made on the complainant, but also by the deposition of P.W. 10 P.S.I. Gaunso whose statement we have already mentioned earlier. From his deposition it is clear that on 10-8-1989 at about 1.45 p.m. he was awakened at his residence at Margao by A.S.I. Mashelkar who gave him the information about rape occurred on that night at the Hotel Colmar and when he immediately went there he met the complainant who told him of the incident and supplied him with the necessary details which helped the police officer to identify and trace the appellant soon after. 21. 21. Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel for the State, has also made available to us the Station Diary of the Colva Police Station from which it is seen that, under Entry No. 2 the First Information which has been allegedly conveyed to the police by Paul Goldrin over the phone at about 1.30 a.m. of 10-8-1989 was recorded and thereafter the complaint given by the prosecutrix has been registered, under Entry No. 4, at about 3.00 a.m. This fact no doubt amounts to a clear further corroboration of the occurrence of the incident of rape at Colmar Hotel on that fateful night and points out to the circumstance that the same has been brought to the notice of the police immediately by the complainant for the purpose of taking action against the culprit. 22. Another aspect to be again considered in this case for the purpose of corroboration is that part of the statement of P.S.I. Gaunso which refers to the fact that it was the complainant herself who immediately after the incident and as soon as he met her at the Hotel Colmar gave to him a detailed description and all the particulars of the physical features of the rapist which prompted him to trace the identity of appellant with the help of the information he gathered also from the employees of Hotel Vincy. According to P.S.I. Gaunso when he went to Hotel Vincy on receiving some information that a person with the particulars described by the complainant was staying there he was told by the Clerk of the Hotel that a man with the features which were tallying with the description given by the prosecutrix and who had checked in that Hotel two days prior had just left sometime before, after midnight. In this respect the evidence of P.W. 5 Eulalio Rodrigues is also relevant and corroborative of this fact. In his deposition the witness has stated that at about 0.30 hours of 10-8-1989 when he was sleeping in his room the watchman called him and told that the appellant wanted to go. He was then allowed to leave and accordingly he left the Hotel with his luggage at that odd hour of the night. 23. In his deposition the witness has stated that at about 0.30 hours of 10-8-1989 when he was sleeping in his room the watchman called him and told that the appellant wanted to go. He was then allowed to leave and accordingly he left the Hotel with his luggage at that odd hour of the night. 23. We are thus satisfied that the statement of the prosecutrix who otherwise has narrated in detail to her room-mate Susan immediately after the incident that she had been raped by the appellant and which therefore, by its very nature, is self-corroborative finds further additional corroboration on the fairly sufficient circumstantial evidence strongly pointing out to the fact that the complainant was actually forced by the said appellant to maintain with him sexual intercourse under the threats of a knife. The reliance placed by Shri Kholkar on the case of (Kamalakanta Patra v. State)4, (1984)2 Crimes 713 , and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (supra) do not appear to take him any further. In fact both these rulings have been given on totally different circumstances and were decided on facts, being thus not applicable. 24. It was next contended by Shri Kholkar that the prosecution in this case totally failed to adduce material evidence which could have thrown real light on the relevant point with regard to the very presence of the appellant in the Hotel Colmar on that night. The learned Counsel has urged that the only witness who could have deposed in this respect was the watchman of the Hotel who, according to the complainant herself, has opened the door or the gate leading to the staircase so as to enable her to go to her room on which occasion she says that the appellant followed her and ultimately forced himself into her room after which he forcibly maintained sexual intercourse with her. Similarly the complainant refers to this watchman when after the incident she left the room in the company of the appellant and that it was that same watchman who opened the gate to enable both to come out. Therefore, Shri Kholkar insists, the failure of the prosecution to examine this important witnesses is likely to cast serious doubts about the genuineness of the case sought to be made by the complainant. 25. Therefore, Shri Kholkar insists, the failure of the prosecution to examine this important witnesses is likely to cast serious doubts about the genuineness of the case sought to be made by the complainant. 25. In this respect we have to see that the learned Sessions Judge himself has taken note of the importance of this witness and in his anxiety to see to it that the deposition of the watchman should be taken on record even inquired from the Investigating Officer about the availability of the said witness. The record shows that the Investigation Officer explained to the Sessions Judge as to the reason why the said witness could not be examined due to his non-availability on account of the fact that he had left the job in the Hotel and returned to his native place at Gujarat. Hence the reliance placed by Shri Kholkar on the case of (Narain and others v. State of Punjab)5, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 484, which is dealing with the effect of non-production of material witnesses and the duty of the prosecution to produce them does not appear also to be attracted. Apart from the circumstances that on the facts of this case the said witness does not seem to be that material to establish the actual incident of rape, consequent upon the value of the evidence given by the prosecutrix herself which in our view besides being self-corroborative has also been sufficiently corroborated by circumstantial evidence, in the said decision what has been mainly stressed is that a witness is material for the prosecution only when it is essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is based. It has been also further observed that it is not that the prosecution is bound to call all witnesses who may have seen the occurrence. It is expected that it should call only material witnesses and if a material witness has been deliberately or unfairly (emphasis supplied) kept back then a serious doubt is cast on the propriety itself and the validity of the conviction resulting from is made open to challenge. We have seen that in our case the failure of the prosecution to examine the watchman has been sufficiently explained and therefore there is no question of this witness having been deliberately kept out from the trial. 26. We have seen that in our case the failure of the prosecution to examine the watchman has been sufficiently explained and therefore there is no question of this witness having been deliberately kept out from the trial. 26. In the result we see no merit in this appeal which is thus bound to fail. We therefore dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence adequately imposed by the learned Sessions Judge on the appellant. Appeal dismissed. *****