JUDGMENT In the case, Basantibai is a grown up old married woman aged according to the prosecution 55 years and according to the estimate made by the trial Court, 50 years. The accused is aged 40 years. During examination of defence witnesses it was suggested by the prosecution to Ram Kanyabai (P.W.3) aged 35 years that she had illicit connection with the accused and lives with him. Having regard to this the 'probabilities-factor' as observed in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujrat ( AIR 1983 SC 753 ) is found to be out of tune. In Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1983 SC 911 ) it has been held that in the case of a grown up married woman it is always safe to insist on such corroboration. Where-ever 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. Such corroboration can be sought from either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or from both. While no age from an infant to an old woman is safe from rape, examining the prosecution evidence on the touch stone of the aforesaid two decisions prosecutrix Basanti Bai (P.W.1) does not appear to be a truthful witness. According to her, the accused persuaded her to sit on back carrier of his bicycle and then later says that he made her forcibly to sit and drove bicycle fast towards polytechnic College. At that time street lights were off. She also says that some two or four persons whom she did not know, were following her on motorcycles. Further, when she tried to jump from bicycle, the persons following her did not allow her to jump and threatened her with knives if she jumped. But she later says that those people following her went ahead. Then she states that accused fell her down forcibly. There was struggle and in the struggle she sustained injuries on her nose, private part(Peshab) and other parts of the body and her whole body was swollen. The accused undressed himself and had sexual intercourse with her. Proceeding further she states that those four persons returned to the place, inquired from the accused as to what had happened and accused hid her behind a tree. The accused undressed himself and had sexual intercourse with her. Proceeding further she states that those four persons returned to the place, inquired from the accused as to what had happened and accused hid her behind a tree. She further states that the persons who accompanied the accused asked him as to what has happened and accused replied that nothing had happened. The persons saw this woman and then told the accused that why had he brought this old widow (BOODHI RAND) and so saying they left away. When those four persons left, she followed them in mud to her house. She narrated the incident to her husband who is aged 60 years and not capable of sitting or standing. At that time her eldest son was also not in the house. Signficantly in F.I.R. Ex.P/1 lodged at 1.45 p.m. on 1.8.88, there is not a word about four persons following her and threatend her with knife if she got down from the bicycle or their having come to the place where the incident took place and asking accused as to why he had brought this old widow (BUDHI RAND). It also appears unbelievable that the accused would take help of those four persons on motor-cycle while taking this woman aged 55 years for committing rape on her. The other material evidence consists in the statement of Dr. Usha Oza (P.W.3) who examined prosecutrix Basantibai for injuries and Dr.Khare (P. W.5) in whose house Basantibai works as cook. Basantibai also works as cook at the houses of some other doctors. According to Dr. Khare on 1.8.88 i.e. next morning of the incident at about 9-10 a.m. Basantibai told the witness that Ratanlal Dhobi (the accused) had committed rape on her. The doctor uses word 'BALATSANG' legal Hindi version of expression 'rape'. This expression has been used in paras 1, 2 and 9 of his deposition and he attributes this expression to Basantibai. Now, BALATSANG is,as already observed Hindi equivalent legal expression of rape not commonly used in conversation even by well educated people having good knowledge of Hindi. It is not clear from the deposition whether expression BALATSANGoccuring in statement of this witness and attributed to prosecutrix Basantibai was in fact used by Basantibai or is an understanding of the witness of the version if given by Basantibai to him. It is not clear from the deposition whether expression BALATSANGoccuring in statement of this witness and attributed to prosecutrix Basantibai was in fact used by Basantibai or is an understanding of the witness of the version if given by Basantibai to him. In absence of any explanation in this regard on record, the only inference is that Basantibai used expression BALATSANG which appears unnatural and unbelievable. The witness also attempts to support Basantibai by saying that Basantibai had told him that two motor-cyclists were following her and that they had stopped the motor-cycles and made them standing near the hut. As already stated, even Basantibai has not given this version in F.I,R. Ex.P/1. The witness has no doubt denied the suggestion of the accused that the accused was not keeping good terms with him and she got him falsely involved in the case. The witness admits that his wife is lady doctor and works along with lady doctor Usha Oza (P.W.3). According to Basantibai the earliest version as to incident was given by her to her husband Madanlal who was cited as a witness by the prosecution and whose age in the challan is given as 58 years. This witness was also summoned. It is not possible to make out as to why this witness was not examined by the prosecution. The version allegedly given by Basantibai to her husband Madanlal would have been of definite corroborative value to version of prosecutrix Basantibai. The version given by Basantibai to Dr. Khare (P.W.5) the next day relating to rape on her cannot be said to have been made by her about the time when the act took place so as to make it admissible as corroborative piece of evidence as former statement under section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The statement cannot be relevant and would not also be admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act as being connected and forming part of the same transaction. As held in Rameshwar v. Kalyansingh ( AIR 1952 SC 54 ) the main test is whether the statement was made as early as can reasonably be expected in the circumstances of the case and before there was opportunity for tutoring or concoction. Having regard to the aforesaid, the evidence of Dr. Khare(P.W.5) would have to be excluded from consideration as corroborative evidence for judging the veracity of prosecutrix Basantbai. Having regard to the aforesaid, the evidence of Dr. Khare(P.W.5) would have to be excluded from consideration as corroborative evidence for judging the veracity of prosecutrix Basantbai. AIR 1983 SC 753 , AIR 1983 SC 911 and AIR 1952 SC 54 relied on. Appeal allowed.