Honble PALSHIKAR, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 6.8.94 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara convicting the appellant-accused under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default rigorous imprisonment of six months. (2). The prosecution story in short is that on 7.04.1993 in the after-noon, the appellant asked the prosecutrix Seema sho was grazing her cattle that her cattle has entered the field of the accused. It is then alleged that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix by forcibly ravishing her in his field. The prosecutrix, thereafter left the place and reported the matter to her mother who in turn informed her husband, who took her for medical examination and lodged F.I.R. After investigation, challan was filed against the accused and he was prosecuted as aeforesaid under Sec 376 of the I.P.C. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in support of the case that the accused was responsible for ravishing the prosecutrix. The accused denied the deposition of the witnesses in his examination under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C.and has stated that the entire evidence agesinst him is false. The report was lodged due to prior animosity between the accused and the father of the prosecutrix, he has stated that the father of the prosecutrix has passed a writing on a stamp paper staling that the injury to the private parts of the prosecutrix was coused due to fall in the field while she was running away to escape thrashing by the accused for unauthorised entry of the cattle in the field of the accused. The accused has also examined 5 witnesses in his defence. All these five witnesses said that the charge of accused having committed rape was false and that the prosecutrix was injured due to fall while running in the field. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of having committed rape on the prosecutrix who is only 9 years old. In consonance with these findings of the guilt, the learned Judge proceeded to convict the accused for 7 years imprisonment as aforesaid. It is this judgment of conviction which is impugned in this appeal. (3). In consonance with these findings of the guilt, the learned Judge proceeded to convict the accused for 7 years imprisonment as aforesaid. It is this judgment of conviction which is impugned in this appeal. (3). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused submitted that the judgment is unsustainable in law for the following reasons; (a). That the injury caused to the prosecutrix was due to fall in the field. (b). The medical evidence is not incosistent with the innocence of the accused. (c). Doctor in her deposition has categorically admitted that the injury to the private parts of the prosecutrix can be caused by falling of the blunt object. (d). The learned Judge was in error in disbelieving the writing parts of the father of the prosecutrix before the Panchayat. (e). The learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for rejecting the defence evidence. (f). The learned Judge has not considered the deposition of the brother of the prosecutrix who admits the execution of the documents before the Panchayat. (4). For all these reasons, the learned counsel submits that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is unsustainable in law. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the entire circumstances appearing against the accused in the present case even if accepted to be true are consistent with his explanation. Thus, according to the leaned counsel, two views are possible of the evidence on record (1) which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and another consistent with the innocence or his theory of fall while running away. Relying on certain judgments of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel submitted that in such situation inference in favour of the accused should ordinarily be drawn. According to the learned counsel, all the circumstances appearing against the accused can be reasonably explained. In such circumstances and in view of the peculiar circumstances of agreement executed before the Panchayat, the order of conviction appears to be illegal. (5). On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made. The prsecutrix was examined by P.W.I Dr. Usha Sharma, the Doctor has stated that there was injury, the hymen is ruptured, there was some blood oozing. However, the Dr. has also deposed the vaginal smear does not disclose presence of semen and has stated that no definite opinion could be given about rape. The prsecutrix was examined by P.W.I Dr. Usha Sharma, the Doctor has stated that there was injury, the hymen is ruptured, there was some blood oozing. However, the Dr. has also deposed the vaginal smear does not disclose presence of semen and has stated that no definite opinion could be given about rape. She has stated that the injury appears due to blunt object and may be the blunt object could in the circumstances be errect penis. In cross-examination the Dr. has candidly admitted that such injury is also possible by fall on hard blunt object. The evidence of the Doctor does not therefore disclose with any certainty that prosecutrix was sexual ravished. (6). P.W.3 is the prosecutrix. Though, she was 9 years old, she was administered oath. She has deposed that she was sexually assaulted by the accused. She has deposed the manner in which the assault was committed. She has, however, stated in the examination in chief that the accused agreed to pay her Rs. 2/-but did not pay. She has deposed to in report the matter to her mother and father. In her cross-examination, she has said that the accused was lying on her for about 2 hours. It has come in evidence that no other injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix. If she forcibly thrown on the ground and ravished atleast some scratches and bruises would have appeared on her body. She has denied the suggestion that there was no rape. (7). Then P.W.6 was examined who was. supposed to be the eye-witness. However, he has turned hostile, his cross-examination does not indicate anything regarding what factually was seen by him. It will thus be seen that except for the statement of the prosecutrix that whe was ravished by the accused, there is no other evidence of such assault. This statement is not corroborated. In the Circumstances of this case, the only question, therefore, is whether it is legal permissible to maintain the conviction on uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix or whether the attending circumstances can explain on the hypothesis of fall while running away. It will also be material to consider the defence evidence in this regard. All the defence witnesses have deposed that the injury was caused due to fall and that such writing was executed before Panchayat by the father of the prosecutrix. (8). It will also be material to consider the defence evidence in this regard. All the defence witnesses have deposed that the injury was caused due to fall and that such writing was executed before Panchayat by the father of the prosecutrix. (8). Taking into consideration the defence evidence, the document Ex. D-2 executed by the father of the prosecutrix, the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, I find it usafe to maintain this conviction on uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. I feel that in such circumstances, corroboration on material particulars to the testimony of the prosecutrix is a legal necessity. A conviction without such corroboration in the facts of this case is not permissible. In my opinion, the totality of evidence does admit two interpretations and the possibility of the prosecutrix having been injured due to fall while running away cannot be over-ruled. When the defence evidence is also considered that appeaars to be reasonably possible. In such circumstances, the benefit of reasonable doubt should go to the accused. (9). The learned Judge while recording conviction has rejected the defence evidence. He has rejected the document Ex. D-2 as after thought on the ground that no cross-examination was conducted on this point in relation to the father of the prosecutrix or the prosecutrix herself. However, the brother of the prosecutrix was examined and in cross-examination was confronted with that document and has in his cross-examination admitted the execution of the document by the father. In such circumstances, the rejection of the document and other defence evidence by the learned Judge appears to be incorrect and illegal, defence evidence cannot be rejected on extraneous considerations. There is nothing on the corss-examination of these witnesses to discredit the testimony. In my opinion, it appears to be a case of subsequent compromise, there is also reasonable doubt regarding complicity of the accused and the fact regarding ravishing the prosecutrix. The possibility of her having sustained the injury due to fall cannot be over-ruled. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the conviction of the accused is not legal sustainable. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction is set aside. The accused be set at liberty if not required in any other case.