L. RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant who was the District Malaria Officer of Kalahandi at the relevant time was accused of having committed the offence under section 376, I. P. C. on P. W. 6, a Lady Supervisor in the I. C. D. S. Project in the district of Kalahandion 1. 3. 1987. On conviction the appellant has been sentenced to R. I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo R. I. for one year more and fine amount has been directed to be paid to the victim P. W. 6. He has also been convicted under section 342, I. P. C. and has been further sentenced thereunder to R. I. for three months with direction for the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence passed under section 376, I. P. C. The narration of facts alleged by the prosecution is that 1. 3. 1987 being a holiday, P. W. 6 was at her residence at Jubarajpur when she was sent information by the appellant through P. W. 2, a female worker in Anganvadi in Mahulpatna along with a jeep that she was being required by her boss the District Social Welfare Officer of Bhawanipatna and she was to come in the jeep. Getting such information P. W. 6 came in the jeep. At Mahulpatna the jeep stopped and P. W, 2 and her Assistant who had accompanied P. W. 6 in the jeep from her residence got down. There the driver of the jeep came and sat in the rear seat and the appellant getting on the driverts seat drove the jeep towards Bhawanipatna. There was also another person sitting in the jeep at the front named Prasanna Kumar Tripathy who was the Malaria Inspector of Thuamul Rampur. Reaching Bhawanipatna at about 11 p. m. the jeep stopped at the house of the appellant where he got down, went inside and asked the P. W. 6 to come in saying that the D. S. W. O was there. When P. W. 6 went inside, her bag was carried inside by a peon. The appellant thereafter closed the door which being questioned by P. W. 6, he offered her some food, which she declined. Thereafter, the appellant took his food and after washing his hands caught hold of P. W. 6 and tried to ravish her. When P. W. 6 went inside, her bag was carried inside by a peon. The appellant thereafter closed the door which being questioned by P. W. 6, he offered her some food, which she declined. Thereafter, the appellant took his food and after washing his hands caught hold of P. W. 6 and tried to ravish her. She protested such attempts, but ultimately got tired and lost her senses. On regaining her senses in the early hours of the morning she discovered her clothes to be in disarray and she to have been cohabited with. On asking the appellant the reason for his such behaviour, the appellant merely kept silent and smiled. At this time, P. W. 3, the driver of the C. D. P. O, Thuamul-Rampur (P. W. 4) and the Junior Engineer of the said Block came to the house of the appellant and enquired about P. W. 6. They told P. W. 6 that having heard that she was ill and had come to Bhawanipatna for treatment, they had gone to the hospital but not finding her there had come to the house of the appellant in search of her. The Junior Engineer having asked her about her welfare and health, she could not tell them anything but only cried. P. W. 3 brought a rickshaw in which P. W. 6 went to the bus-stand and there P. W. 3 and the Junior Engineer helped her to get into a Thuamul-Rampur bus. At the destination she got down near the house of the C. D. P. O (P. W. 4), a lady named Matilda Dung Dung. There she took her bath but did not take any food and cried when P. W. 4 offered her food. Leaving her in the house P. W. 4 went to her office and on returned there from she again put persistent questions to P. W. 6 as to why she was crying but she did not answer anything and also did not take any food in the night. Next morning when P. W. 4 again questioned her she revealed the facts to her. Then P. W. 4 asked her to put it in writing. She wrote the facts as per Ext. 3 whereafter both she and P. W. 4 came to Bhawanipatna. They reached there in. Next morning when P. W. 4 again questioned her she revealed the facts to her. Then P. W. 4 asked her to put it in writing. She wrote the facts as per Ext. 3 whereafter both she and P. W. 4 came to Bhawanipatna. They reached there in. the evening and next day they went to the police station and lodged the report Ext. 3 which was treated as the F. I. R. and investigation was taken up successively by P. Ws. 9,10 and 11. After completion of investigation, charge Sheet was submitted and the appellant was made to stand the trial. ( 2 ) APART from the witnesses already referred to, the other witnesses figuring in the case are P. W. I, the Professor and N. C. D. of Gynaecology of the M. K. C. G. Medical College-Hospital, Berham pur who had examined P. W. 6 on 10. 3. 1987, P. W. 5 a non-consequential witness, P. W. 7 a Surgery Specialist who had examined the appellant and P. W. 8 the Assistant Malaria Officer in the Malaria Office at Bhawanipatna who was working under the appellant. He has proved the log book of the jeep bearing registration number ORH 1926 belonging to their Department and deposed on the basis of the log book that on 1. 3. 1987 the jeep had visited Mahulpatna, Jaipatna, Rangmal and was back to the headquarters at 11. 30 p. m. The appellant examined himself as the defence witness. ( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant was one of complete denial though he admitted P. W. 6 to have stayed in his house at night on 1. 3. 1987 and suggested to P. W. 6 during her deposition that she was suffering and had come to Bhawanipatna in his jeep for treatment and because she was suspecting that she had conceived through her illicit connection with the Junior Engineer Shri Kharsel, she had filed a false case against him at his instance so that Shri Kharsel might escape from his liability. It was his further plea that he was impotent since 1982 and held no capacity to commit sexual acts. ( 4 ) IT was the opinion of P. W. 7 the Surgery Specialist who had examined the appellant that he was sexually pretend for sexual intercourse. ( 5 ) MR. It was his further plea that he was impotent since 1982 and held no capacity to commit sexual acts. ( 4 ) IT was the opinion of P. W. 7 the Surgery Specialist who had examined the appellant that he was sexually pretend for sexual intercourse. ( 5 ) MR. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged upon falsity of the case by referring to several defects in the investigation, the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the delay in lodging the F. I. R. and the conduct of the prosecutrix. It will be of profit to take up such submissions one by one and see their impact on the prosecution case. ( 6 ) THE first submission is regarding the delay in lodging the F. I. R. Admittedly the F. I. R. was lodged at5 p. m. on 4. 3. 1987. It is in the evidence of P. W. 6 that after the occurrence she staned crying when she was questioned by the driver and the Junior Engineer about the welfare. P. W. 3 brought a risk-shaw and she went to the bus-stand in that rickshaw and they helped her to get on the Thuamul-Rampur bus. Reaching Thuamul Rampur she went to the house of the C. D. P. O, P. W. 4, and when she offered her food she stoned crying. P. W. 4 asked her several times as to why she was crying but she did not tell the reason. In the night P. W. 4 also offered her food which she did not take but cried and did not disclose the reason of her crying. In the night during sleep she thought over the matter and could not sleep. In the morning when P. W. 4 questioned her, she made up her mind to tell her the facts. This explanation has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as sufficient to explain the delay. I do not find any reason to depart from the same. P. W. 6 is a highly educated lady being on M. A. in Arts and Architecture from Banaras University and was employed under the Government. She had a status and prestige in the society. I do not find any reason to depart from the same. P. W. 6 is a highly educated lady being on M. A. in Arts and Architecture from Banaras University and was employed under the Government. She had a status and prestige in the society. In a tradition- bound society like ours, it very often happens that ladies subjected to sexual assault do not come out in the open and try to conceal the fact because of social disapproval with its accompanying humiliation. P. W. 6 must have been more conscious of such fact and there was nothing unusual for her to go on thinking over the matter for a complete day before she decided to come out in the open. There was as such no unnatural conduct in her for such reason. ( 7 ) THE next submission of Mr. Misra is that P. W. 6 was admittedly examined by the Medical Officer at Bhawanipatna, Dr. P. Radha, a Lady Assistant Surgeon of the District Headquarters Hospital, Bhawanipatna. Though her Report has been marked as Ext. 10/1 and the corresponding police Report has been marked as Ext. 10, yet the doctor has not been examined. P. W. 6 had stated in the F. I. R. that the appellant had bitten her at her chest and face and had also stated in her evidence in Court that because of the ravishment she had nail marks on her breasts and right arm and bite marks on her breasts and face. Though such was her statement, yet Ext. 10/1 did not show any mark of injury on her person which fact could have been brought out had the doctor been examined as a witness. The report Ext. 10/1 having been exhibited and the Report being specific about non-existence of injuries at the places deposed to by P. W. 6, I do not see how non- examination of the doctor would any way prejudice the appellant. . The question rather is whether the difference between the report and the ocular testimony of, P. W. 6 should be treated as be laying the prosecution case. That is a question which I shall take up while dealing with the effect of such factor on the totality of the prosecution case. Another important aspect relied upon by Mr. . The question rather is whether the difference between the report and the ocular testimony of, P. W. 6 should be treated as be laying the prosecution case. That is a question which I shall take up while dealing with the effect of such factor on the totality of the prosecution case. Another important aspect relied upon by Mr. Misra is the absence of semen on the wearing apparels of P. W. 6 though it was her positive statement that her clothes were stained with semen of the appellant. Ext. 6 is the seizure list dated 5. 3. 1987 under which the wearing apparels of P. W. 6 were seized and Ext. 6/1 is her signature. Ext. 6 shows the production of clothes by P. W. 6 saying those to have been stained with semen. It was her case also in the F. I. R. as well as in the statements in Court that in the morning when she regained semens and found herself to have been sexually, she noticed semen like substances sticking on her inner parts. Ext. 16, the chemical examination report, however does not show any semen stains on the wearing apparels of P. W. 6. P. W. 1 is the medical officer who had examined P. W. 6 and had given the opinion that there was nothing to indicate that P. W. 6 had been subjected to sexual intercourse on 1. 3. 1987 night. He found no injury around the genitalia or on the inner parts of the thighs. The labia majora was coetaneous in color and lax and labia minora was pink in color and thin. The vestibular region and lower surfaces of labia minora looked red. There were old tears of hymen at 7, 12 and 3 Oclock positions. The vaginal orifice admitted I-1/2 fingers. There was no bleeding during digital examination. The vaginal canal was moderately roomy and rugosity partially present. Coupled with such facts, the other factors are the non-examination of the driver of the jeep in which P. W. 6 was brought, of the peon in the house of the appellant who had taken her luggage inside the house and of the Malaria Inspector who had accompanied in the same jeep as witnesses, non-sending of the bed-sheet of the appellant which had been seized as per Ext. 18 on 4. 5. 18 on 4. 5. 1 987for chemical examination and the development made by P. W. 6 in her evidence in Court that while she protested to the advancement of the appellant, she was pointed at a hanging rope with a loop with the threat that if she, would protest she would be hanged. ( 8 ) THE wearing apparels of P. W. 6 though seized on 5. 3. 1987 were sent for chemical examination only on 8. 3. 1987 and the report came on 23. 11. 1987. It is thus possible that by the long lapse of time the detection of blood and semen on the wearing apparels of P. W. 6 might have become not possible. As a matter of fact, this case discloses a sorry state of affair so far as the investigation is concerned. Even though three investigating officers investigated into the case, yet apparent loopholes were left without any sincere attempt to make the investigation thorough. There is no reason for the wearing apparels seized on 5. 3. 1987 not to have been sent promptly for chemical examination and also to obtain the report promptly. There is also no reason as to why even though the bed-sheet of the appellant was sized yet the same was not sent for chemical examination at all. It is on record that P. W. 6 expressed dissatisfaction over her examination conducted by the Lady Assistant Surgeon at the. Bhawanipatna Headquarters Hospital and wanted to be examined by another doctor and even though she categorically stated to have suffered nail injuries and bite injuries on her face, breasts and arms, yet no prompt steps were taken to get examined immediately by another doctor. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted the prosecution statement that the Lady Assistant Surgeon had not been examined as she had apparently given a favourable report advantageous to the appellant. The appellant was after all man of the same discipline as the Lady Assistant Surgeon and posted in the same district and was a high officer. Since that was so, it was all the more necessary for the investigating officers to be more vigilant. As a matter of fact, the state of investigation in the case leaves one with the feeling as if there was an attempt at scuttling the prosecution case itself, may be for the reason of involvement of a high officer of the Government. As a matter of fact, the state of investigation in the case leaves one with the feeling as if there was an attempt at scuttling the prosecution case itself, may be for the reason of involvement of a high officer of the Government. ( 9 ) SO far as the submission of Mr. Misra that other witnesses were not examined, the order of the Sessions Judge of 15. 11. 1988 shows the Special P. P. to have filed a petition not to examine those witnesses as they had been gained over by the defence, the appellant being a high officer. As a matter, fact, all of them were his subordinates being the driver of his jeep, his orderly peon and the Malaria Inspector. For the reason, I do not find any infirmity in their non-examination. ( 10 ) BEREFT of such questions, the fact remains that P. W. 6, a Government officer and an educated lady with apparently no connection with the appellant had chosen to come against him alleging commission by him of a henious crime against her. Absolutely no reason is assigned as to why such allegation would be made against him in view of P. W. 6s own position in the society. The appellant in defence has even gone to the extent of suggesting that she had set up a false story to avoid the stigma attached to her pregnancy caused by the Junior Engineer Shri Kharsel. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of P. W. 6 being pregnant, yet that by itself does not destroy her allegation of rape on her. The falsity of the plea of the appellant is further apparent from the fact that his very defence was one of his impotency which was found not to be true. Doubtless Mr. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence of P. W. 6 being pregnant, yet that by itself does not destroy her allegation of rape on her. The falsity of the plea of the appellant is further apparent from the fact that his very defence was one of his impotency which was found not to be true. Doubtless Mr. Misra has relied on a development and embellishment by P. W. 6 in her evidence as have been referred to above, but however shorn of such development, the basic story remains that P. W. 6 traveled in the jeep during the night and had stayed in the house of the appellant Her stay in the house might or might not have been voluntary, but even if the stay was voluntary, yet she was not prepared for the conduct of the appellant and when such an incident happened, she became thoroughly disconsolate and was unable to decide her course of action except resorting to the only natural reaction of crying. That she cried even to the first questioning is borne out from the testimony of P. W. 3. Her case is thoroughly corroborated by P. W. 4 in all material particulars and it was she who had received the report from P. W. 6. ( 11 ) MR. Misra has placed reliance on Harlan Bago v. State K. P R. Mohapatra V. State of Orissa and Kubera v. State to prove his point that in absence of visible injuries the question of rape should be ruled out. The decisions are strictly not applicable to the facts of the present case and are all distinguishable. It was also strenuously urged by him that mere ocular version of P. W. 6 should not be made the basis of conviction without there being corroboration to her statement if she had really sustain the injuries as described by her. About non-existence of injuries, I have already discussed earlier the dissatisfaction expressed by P. W. 6 over her examination by the Lady Assistant Surgeon whose report Ext. 10/1 did not mention any injuries on her. It is settled Law that where there is difference between the ocular version and the medical evidence, the ocular version is to get precedence unless the medical evidence is such as to completely show the ocular version to be untrue. 10/1 did not mention any injuries on her. It is settled Law that where there is difference between the ocular version and the medical evidence, the ocular version is to get precedence unless the medical evidence is such as to completely show the ocular version to be untrue. Here was a case where the positive version of P. W. 6 is of having suffered injuries. The report Ext. 20/1 would not nullify her version. It appears more so that the default in bringing her injuries to evidence was due to the lapse of the investigating agency and that if prompt steps would have been taken, it would have been conclusively established as to the existence or otherwise of those injuries. Such lapse in the investigation was at the cost of the honour and dignity of the prosecutrix. Even the opinion of P. W. I that P. W. 6 could not have been subjected to rape on 1. 3. 1987 appears rather farfetched as her examination was on 10. 3. 1987 and from the mere presence of the factors as was found by him, such a categorical opinion would be rather difficult to reach. ( 12 ) IF the version of the prosecutrix in her evidence is believable, the basic truth in her evidence is ascertainable and it is found to be credible and consistent, there is no law that that itself cannot form the basis of conviction. Corroboration, as has been often held, is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the apex Court that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands al par with the evidence of an injured witness and is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroboration, as has been often held, is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. It has been repeatedly pointed out by the apex Court that the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands al par with the evidence of an injured witness and is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. In Bharwada Bhoglabhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat it was observed: We are therefore of the opinion that 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, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming, subject to the following qualifications: Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having leveled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self- preservation. Or when the probabilities-factor is found to be out of tune. In the present case however such statement of P. W. 6 finds ample corroboration from the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4. As a matter of fact the appellant himself admits that P. W. 6 stayed in his house at the night In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the conviction and sentence against the appellant. There is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. The appellant having been on bail, the bail is cancelled and the bail bond is discharged. N. B. W. be issued forthwith for his arrest to undergo the sentence. Appeal dismissed.