Judgment Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant in this appeal stands convicted and sentenced under Sections 376/448 IPC by the judgment and order passed by 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 30th May, 1990, in S.T. No. 312/87. The trial court having regard to the fact that the appellant was aged about 76 years on the date of conviction, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 376 IPC, but passed no separate sentence under Sec. 448 IPC. The appellant has preferred this appeal, praying that his conviction and sentence be set aside. 2. The prosecutrix who is also the informant in this case as well as the appellant are the residents of the same village, Bhatkhijri, police station, Lohardaga. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.12.82, at about 7 a.m. while the informant was preparing Murhi in her house and was alone, the appellant came there and forcibly dragged her inside the room and committed rape upon her. While the appellant was going out of the house after committing rape, the husband of the informant came and saw him going out. On enquiry from the prosecutrix, he came to know about the occurrence and thereafter he chased the appellant raising alarm, but the appellant could not be apprehended. A large number of persons gathered at the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm and went to the house of the appellant and asked him to come out. The appellant closed the door of his house and refused to come out. Thereafter, the informant along with her husband Damodar Sao, P.W. 1 went to the police station Lohardaga and lodged the report at 1.30 p.m., on the basis of which the case was registered against the appellant and after investigation, the appellant was put on trial before the 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, it also appears from the record that at about 2 p.m. on the same day, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination by the lady doctor, P.W. 6, who did not find any sign of rape. 3. 3. The prosecution has examined a large number of witnesses and has relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix is also the corroborative evidence of the villagers who had assembled on the alarm being raised by the husband and to whom the entire incident was narrated by the prosecutrix and her husband, P.W. 1. The prosecution has also examined witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant running away from the house of the informant, immediately after the occurrence. The appellant, on the other hand, has denied the guilt and from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses, his defence appears to be that he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of long standing enmity arising out of land disputes and other dispute. From the trend of cross-examination, it also appears that the defence faintly suggested that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and this was largely based on the admissions made by her in her deposition from which it appears that she was alone in her house on that date and she had offered no resistance to the appellant. The trial court has believed the prosecutrix and has held that her testimony stands corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses to whom the incident was narrated immediately after the occurrence and some of whom had seen the appellant running away from the house of the informant soon after the occurrence. He accordingly found the appellant guilty of rape as well as criminal tres-pass and sentenced him as noticed earlier. 4. Counsel for the defence vehemently submitted before this Court that the trial court has gravely erred in finding the appellant guilty. It has been submitted that apart from the inherent improbability of case having regard to the age of the appellant, the prosecution evidence is contradictory and unconvincing. The critical scrutiny of the evidence of the informant, who was examined as P.W. 4, would disclose that she was not speaking the truth. The fact that no incident as alleged took place is further corroborated by the medical evidence of the informant which was conducted within half an hour of the lodging of the FIR and even such a prompt medical examination did not disclose the commission of the offence alleged. The so-called corroborating witnesses were got up witnesses and none of them had actually seen the appellant running away from the house of the informant. The so-called corroborating witnesses were got up witnesses and none of them had actually seen the appellant running away from the house of the informant. The trial court has failed to critically scrutinize the evidence on record and has made conjectures in order to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. According to the learned Counsel for the defence, the trial court felt overwhelmed by the seriousness of the accusation and was led to think that the prosecutrix must be speaking the truth, even though glaring lacunas were pointed out in the prosecution case. 5. In the background as well as the State it would be useful to notice the evidence on record in some detail, even though the trial court has exhaustively dealt with the evidence on the record. The narration must begin with the accusation as contained in the report lodged by the informant at Lohardaga police station at 1.30 p.m. on the date of the occurrence i.e. 19.12.82. In her report, the prosecutrix, P.W. 4 stated that on the date of occurrence in the morning at about 7 a.m. she was at her house alone, in the village. The door of the house was open and she was preparing Murhi on her ever. The appellant, aged about 60 years, came inside and she was perplexed to see him inside her house. The appellant cough her with one hand and with his other hand he pressed her mouth with his Dhoti and took her to a room inside the house. He felled her on the ground and committed rape upon her forcibly and against her wishes. She wanted to raise alarm but could not do so as she was gagged. After completion of the sexual act the appellant went away and when she was about to come out raising alarm, her husband came. The appellant ran away and thereafter she told her husband about what had happened. Some villagers had assembled there and she narrated the incident to them. She along with her husband and the villagers thereafter went to the house of the appellant and asked him to come out, but he refused to do so. Thereafter, they went to the police station to lodge the report for appropriate legal action. She complained of pain in her left thigh. 6. The prosecution examined the husband of the prosecutrix, Damodar Sao, as P.W. 1. Thereafter, they went to the police station to lodge the report for appropriate legal action. She complained of pain in her left thigh. 6. The prosecution examined the husband of the prosecutrix, Damodar Sao, as P.W. 1. He stated that on 18.12.82, i.e.. a day before the occurrence, he had gone to his in laws house and he returned on the next day i.e. on the date of occurrence at about 7 a.m. when he came to his house he found that the door was open and when he was about to enter the house, he saw the appellant coming out of the house. The appellant was holding his shoes in his left hand and was arranging his Dhoti with his right hand while coming out. When he went inside the house he found his wife weeping. On being asked, his wife told him about the occurrence. On hearing about the occurrence, he came out of the house and started raising alarm. On hearing alarm his brother, Badri Sao and Akchhaybar Sao, P.W. 9 as also his aunt, Rupwa Sahun P.W. 5 came there. Other villagers also assembled there. Thereafter all of them went to the house of the appellant and asked the appellant to come out, but he did not do so. They, thereafter came back to his house and from there they went to the police station, where F.I.R. was lodged. The report lodged by his wife was witnessed by P.W. 7, Anupam Prakash and P.W. 9, Akchhayabar Sao. 7. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had three brothers, namely, Sudama Sao, Akchhayabar Sao and Badri Sao and all of them lived in the same house, but had separate Angans. He further stated that he had four children. The eldest is a daughter and other three are sons. His daughter was not in the village on the date of occurrence as she had gone to her maternal grand-mothers place. He admitted that the elder son of the appellant was an Advocate who was present in the court and the age of the son of the appellant was about 50 years. The appellant had grand-children, who may be about 15 years of age. The appellant had a married daughter and the wife of the appellant was also alive and living with him. The house of the appellant was at a distance of about half kms. The appellant had grand-children, who may be about 15 years of age. The appellant had a married daughter and the wife of the appellant was also alive and living with him. The house of the appellant was at a distance of about half kms. form his house and it took about 2-4 minutes to cover that distance Adjacent to his house in the south was the house of a Lohar and to the east of his house are the houses of his brothers. Damodar Sao stated that he had not sold any land to the appellant, but he had mortgaged his land to the appellant. He had received a sum of Rs. 2200/~ on mortgaging his two lands known as Kherhadon and Bandadon. Kharadon land was mortgaged 10-11 years ago and Bandodon land about 6-7 years ago. The appellant was always in possession of those lands, but about three years ago, the witness dispossessed him and came in possession of the lands. He denied the suggestion that he had sold the lands to the appellants and stated that he had only mortgaged the lands. In any event he had no knowledge that the appellant had got a sale deed executed by him and not a mortgage deed. This fact came to his knowledge 3 years ago. He had not suspected that the appellant will commit fraud upon him. He claimed to be literate and could sign documents. He further stated that he had not read the sale deed. He had got a notice issued to the appellant, through his lawyer and he had also signed trie notice. However, he had dispossessed the appellant form those lands and had started cultivating the lands himself. He further admitted that survey operations were in progress since before the year 1980 and at the time when survey operations were in progress, the appellant was in possession of the lands. He could not say whether in the survey proceedings, name of the appellant was entered with regard to those lands. He also denied the suggestion that he had applied for getting the entry in favour of the appellant cancelled but he had lost both the cases. He also showed his ignorance about the purcha being issued in favour of the appellant in respect of both the lands. He also denied the suggestion that he had applied for getting the entry in favour of the appellant cancelled but he had lost both the cases. He also showed his ignorance about the purcha being issued in favour of the appellant in respect of both the lands. This witness further admitted that his father had mortgaged some land to the appellant by registered document in the year 1973. He further claimed that the lands subject matter of the mortgage had been sold by his and his brothers to Radha Devi. The sale took place about 8 years ago and the loan taken from the appellant had been returned to him before the sale of the land, bur he did not remember, if there was any receipt in this regard executed by the appellant Radha Devi dispossessed the appellant from the land sold to her. He denied the suggestion mat the appellant was still in possession of all the three lands. In respect of another land, this witness stated that the said land had fallen to the share of his mother, but he could not say whether she had mortgaged that land to the appellant. An unregistered deed of mortgage was shown to him which was marked Y fro identification. He further admitted that he had been cultivating these lands for the last 3 years, through before that this land was in possession of the appellant. He, however, could not say as to in what capacity the appellant was cultivating the said land. He admitted that apart from this mortgage, he had also taken loans form the appellant, but the papers in relation to that transaction were with the appellant. The witness was shown the mortgage deem which was marked for identification as Y which was dated 23.2.1977. The witness admitted that the document bore the thumb impression of his mother and the document was written by him. Two witnesses had also signed the document. This witness admitted that this land was sold in the year 1980 for Rs. 1500.00 to Radha Devi, his aunt. His further stated that the appellant was not in possession of the land and Radha Devi had sold the land to Kauleshwar Sahu. 8. The witness further stated that he had not informed the Chowkidar of the village about the occurrence because he was in hurry. 1500.00 to Radha Devi, his aunt. His further stated that the appellant was not in possession of the land and Radha Devi had sold the land to Kauleshwar Sahu. 8. The witness further stated that he had not informed the Chowkidar of the village about the occurrence because he was in hurry. The occurrence took place at about 7 a.m. and by 8.30 they had left for the police station, which was about 7 kms. away. He had also not informed the Mukhia and Surpanch of the village about the occurrence. He further stated that he had not raised alarm immediately on seeing the accused coming out of the house. He first went inside and after learning about the incident from his wife, he come out raising alarm. He went inside the room and found his wife weeping. His wife was still holding, the stick with which , Murthi is prepared. This witness denied the suggestion that this criminal case had been instituted with a view to bring pressure on the appellant to return the land sold to him and that he hoped that being demoralised and disgraced, he may release the lands. This witness admitted the mortgage deeds dated 9.2.80 and 10.1.78 which were marked as Bxts. E and F- This witness further admitted that the appellant had filed a criminal case against him in which he had to remain in custody for four days and his wife also had to remain in jail for two days. 9. Balmukund Sao, the next witness has been examined as P.W. 2. He claimed that he had come on hearing the alarm raised by P.W. 1. He enquired from Badri Sao, brother of P.W.I about the occurrence and was told by him about what had happened. This witness had accompanied the informant to the police station and was a witness to the seizure of Petticote of the informant. This witness stated that the Petticote had been seized by the police officer at the police station and he had noticed that at 2-3 places there were stains on the Petiticote. From the deposition of this witness, it appears that he was also related to the informant and addressed the informant as Bhowjai, meaning thereby that she was his brothers wife. From the deposition of this witness, it appears that he was also related to the informant and addressed the informant as Bhowjai, meaning thereby that she was his brothers wife. At this stage it may be noted that the Petticote of the informant was seized by the police and according to the Investigation Officer, it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for a report, as it was suspected to contain stains of seamen. However, no report was produced at the trial to establish that the Petticote of the informant contained semen stains. 10. P.W. 3, Jitendra Wishwarrama, claimed to be another persons who had come to the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm and was told by P.W. 1 about the occurrence. 11. The prosecutrix was examined as P.W. 4. In her examination-in-chief, who supported the F.I.R. lodged by her. She corroborated the testimony of her husband that while the appellant was going out of her house, her husband came. He first came inside the room where she was weeping and she told him about the occurrence. Thereafter her husband went out and started raising alarm. She also stated that her Petticote was seized by the police and that it contained stains at 3 places. She further stated that form the police station she was sent to the Govt. Hospital for medical examination. In her examination-in-chief, itself she stated that after the occurrence, but before the medical examination she had gone to urinate and had used water. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had never any talk with the accused and in fact never looked at his face and there had never been any communication whatsoever between her and the accused. At the time of the occurrence, the sons had gone out and people all around had got and were attending to their daily works. Her three children including the one in her lap had gone out to the village to bask in the sun as it was winter time. Her daughter had gone to her material uncle 8 days prior to the occurrence and was not present at the village. She admitted that when the appellant caught her she did not abuse him, nor did she scold him. She also did not hit him with a burning stick from the over. Her daughter had gone to her material uncle 8 days prior to the occurrence and was not present at the village. She admitted that when the appellant caught her she did not abuse him, nor did she scold him. She also did not hit him with a burning stick from the over. The appellant had pressed her mouth with one hand and had caught her right arm with the other. She admitted she did not attempt to remove his Dhoti from her mouth with her left hand which was free. She stated in detail about the manner in which the appellant had sexual intercourse whether and in clear terms stated that he released her only after he had discharged inside. In fact, he pressed her when he was discharging. She got up only after the accused went out. As soon as she came out of the room, she saw her husband and told her husband about the occurrence. The accused had in the meantime run away and her husband chased him for 20-25 yards raising alarm. She further stated that no one came when the husband was chasing the appellant, but they had come later. This witness admitted that she had not given any scratch to the appellant nor did she assault him. 12. Ruapwa Sahuin, aunt of P.W. 1 was examined as P.W. 5. Her evidence is signification because the trial court has relied upon her testimony as providing corroboration to the prosecution case, inasmuch as she claimed to have seen the appellant running out of the house of the informant. According to this witness at about 7 a.m. on the date of occurrence, she had come to the house of Badro Sao in search of labourers and when she was at the house of Badri Sao she heard the alarm raised by P.W. 1 and when she came out, she saw the appellant holding his dhori in his left hand and shoes in the right hand and was running away towards his house. She then went to the house of P.W. 1, who told her about the occurrence. She admitted that she was the aunt of P.W. 1 being the wife of the brother of the father of P.W. 1. The cross-examination of this witness discloses that she is thoroughly unreliable witness and has no regards for truth. She then went to the house of P.W. 1, who told her about the occurrence. She admitted that she was the aunt of P.W. 1 being the wife of the brother of the father of P.W. 1. The cross-examination of this witness discloses that she is thoroughly unreliable witness and has no regards for truth. She stated that she had seen the daughter of the informant at the house of the informant and she was also weeping. This is clearly inconsistent with the testimony of the informant and her husband, as accordingly to them, on the date of the occurrence their daughter had gone to the house of the material uncle and was not present. When questioned, as to whom she had met at the house of the informant, she stated that she did not see any of the brother or nephews of the informant husband, P.W. 1, because they live separately. This again is inconsistent with the statement of the other witnesses. The informant as also her husband, P.W. 1 stated that on alarm, his brothers, namely, Badri Sao and Akchhaybar Sao, P.W. 9 had come to his house. It is not as if this witness had gone away immediately because she admitted that when she found P.W. 1 and others going to the house of the appellant she returned to her house. The prosecution case is that the informant along with her husband and others including the bothers of her husband had gone to the house of the appellant and asked him to come out of the house. She being the aunt of P.W. 1 could not have failed to notice the presence of her nephews whom she knew very well. Having regard to these inconsistencies, her testimony cannot be accepted as true and I have no doubt in coming to the conclusion that this witness is not speaking the truth and that she had perhaps not even gone to the house of the informant on the date of the occurrence. The trial court has tried to reconcile the evidence of this witness by conjecturing that it may be that the daughter of the informant had come back on the same day. There is no scope for conjecturing when the clear case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the informant and P.W. 1 was at her Mamas house and the date of occurrence. There is no scope for conjecturing when the clear case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the informant and P.W. 1 was at her Mamas house and the date of occurrence. I am of the considered view, that the evidence of this witness must be discharged. 13. P.W. 8 is the other corroborating witness, relied upon by the trial court. Her name is Dasmin Devi and she claimed that she had gone to fetch water from the well near the house of the informant when she saw one villager whose name she did not know, holding shoes in one hand and Dhoti in the other going towards his house from near the house of Damodar Sao, P.W. 1. She further stated that she did not come to know anything from the house of Damodar Sao and thereafter the went back to house. She, however, identified the appellant as the person whom she had seen going away towards his house. But she also stated that she had heard nothing about the occurrence. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had named the appellant before the police, but she had forgotten his name. She denied to have made by statement before the police. What, however, is signification is the fact that in the cross-examination she stated that she had never seen the accused and that she did not know his name. She had no concern with the accused, not she had ever seen him. She stated that she could not identify the accused nor had she identified his on the date of the occurrence. This witness was declared hostile and she has made such contradictory statements that she cannot be believed and her evidence cannot be of any assistance either to the prosecution or to the defence. The testimony of this witness, therefore, must be rejected outright. 14. The other witness who had seen he accused coming out of the house of the informant is Akchhaybar Sao, P.W. 9. He is the brother of P.W. 1. He admitted that all the brothers live separately, though their houses have common roof. They have separate Angans. He claimed that on the date of occurrence, he heard the alarm raised by his brother Damodar, P.W. 1 and came out of his house. He is the brother of P.W. 1. He admitted that all the brothers live separately, though their houses have common roof. They have separate Angans. He claimed that on the date of occurrence, he heard the alarm raised by his brother Damodar, P.W. 1 and came out of his house. He saw the appellant coming out of the house of Damodar and going away towards his house, holding his shows in one and Dhoti in the other. Thereafter when he went inside the house, he was told by Damodar about the occurrence. He was also told by the informant about the occurrence. He had accompanied them to the police station where F.I.R. was lodged. Some inconsistencies have been pointed out in the testimony of this witness. He had stated that the appellant was in possession of the lands mortgaged to him, known as Bandodon. He further stated that only he cultivates the land at Bandodon and gives a share of the paddy to the appellant, but his other brothers take their shares and do not give anything to the appellant. This witness also stated that when he had gone to the house of P.W. 1 in the morning, he had no talk with his wife. He also stated that Kalsu Devi, the informant had not gone with others to the house of appellant. No doubt, these small inconsistencies are there in the testimony of this witness, but they are hardly sufficient to discard his testimony all together. His testimony has to be considered on its own merits and having regard to the evidence on record. 15. I have already found that P.W. 5 and 8, in so far as they claim to have seen the appellant going out of the house of the informant cannot be believed, because both these witnesses are found to be unreliable and unworthy of credence. P.W. 9 is the only witness whose testimony has to be considered on this aspect of the prosecution case. To me, it appears that even this witness is not speaking the truth and is a got up witness, to boost up the prosecution case. His claim hat he had seen the appellant coming out of the house of the informant cannot be accepted. To me, it appears that even this witness is not speaking the truth and is a got up witness, to boost up the prosecution case. His claim hat he had seen the appellant coming out of the house of the informant cannot be accepted. I have already noticed the testimony of P.W. 1 wherein he stated that when he was about to enter the house on the date of occurrence, he had seen the appellant coming out of the house. He did not talk to the appellant, nor did he raise alarm immediately. He in clear terms stated that he went inside the house and met his wife in the room. His wife started weeping, whereupon he questioned as to what had happened and his wife informed him about the occurrence. It is only thereafter that he coma out of the house and started raising alarm. Obviously some time must have elapsed by the time P.W. 1 went inside the hose and came out again raising alarm. The appellant, according to this witness, P.W. 1, was seen coming out of the house, when P.W. 1 was entering the house. It is, therefore, highly improbable that P.W. 9 could have seen the appellant coming out of the house of P.W. 1, as he came to the house of P.W. 1 after hearing the alarm raised by P.W. 1. Having regard to the facts as started by Damodar Sao, P.W. 1 and his wife P.W, 4, by the time P.W, 1 may have raised alarm, the appellant must have run away from the place of occurrence, P.W. 4, the prosecutrix has stated in her testimony, in so many words, that her husband came out running and raising alarm and thereafter chased the appellant for 20-25 yards. P.W. 9 does not say that he had either seen Damodar Sao, P.W. 1 chasing the appellant or that he had himself cashed the appellant. On the contrary, his statement is that when he went inside the house of Damodar. P.W. 1, he was told by him that the appellant had committed rape upon his wife. Obviously, therefore, this witness must have come to the house of the informant, after he P.W.1 had returned. In these circumstances, even if it is assumed by for the sake of argument that the occurrence took place in the manner as alleged by P.Ws. P.W. 1, he was told by him that the appellant had committed rape upon his wife. Obviously, therefore, this witness must have come to the house of the informant, after he P.W.1 had returned. In these circumstances, even if it is assumed by for the sake of argument that the occurrence took place in the manner as alleged by P.Ws. 1 and 4, claim of P.W. 9 that he had seen the appellant coming out of the house of P.W. 1 and going towards his own hose cannot be accepted. I have therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the testimony of P.Ws. 5, 8 and 9 and the claim that they had seen the appellant coming out of the house of P.W. 1, soon after the occurrence. 16. The prosecution case must, therefore, rest on the testimony of the prosecutrix and the corroboration of her testimony by the persons who had assembled near the house soon after the occurrence to whom the occurrence was narrated. 17. It is now well settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone, if the same is found to be truthful and without blemish and if there are no suspicious circumstances which compel the court to took for independent corroboration. The criminal jurisdiction which treated the prosecutrix as an accomplice is now outdated and the recent trend of decisions is in favour of acceptance of the testimony of the prosecutrix after scrutinizing the same in the same manner as the evidence of any other witness is scrutinized in a criminal trial. At best the prosecutrix is like an injured witness, who has seen the occurrence and is competent to depose about the manner in which he was injured. The trial court has also noticed the decision of the Supreme Court on this question and has referred the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Chandra Prakash Kewal Chand Jain. -- . Following the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it must be held 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. The general requirement is, however, subject to the following qualification: Corroboration may be insisted upon where a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is likelihood of her having such an accusation on account of the instinct of self perversion. 18. In the instant case, the prosecutrix has admitted that she did not attempt to assault the appellant with a view to protect herself. She also admits that she neither scolded him nor abused him, but she pleads helplessness. One cannot lose sight of the fact that it is not a case in which the appellant was armed with any deadly weapon which put the prosecutrix in imminent danger to her life, if she resisted the appellant. The appellant is an old man and as it appears to me, the prosecutrix who was 28 years of age was considerably younger to him. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm immediately after she was released by the appellant, the other fact which cannot be lost sight of is that her husband had suddenly returned from his in laws house and had seen the appellant coming out of the house. It is only thereafter that the prosecutrix started weeping and narrated the incident to her husband. Moreover, there is medical evidence on the record. The occurrence took place at 7 a.m. the prosecutrix along with others left for the police station. The report was lodged at 1.30 p.m. at 2 p.m. she was sent to Government. Hospital for medical examination by the lady doctor. In these circumstances, the report of the medical officer is of considerable significance and it would be fair to insist on the corroboration of the prosecutrix case by the medical evidence on the record, particularly having regard to the manner in which rape is alleged to have been committed, which is obvious from the graphic details given by the prosecurtrix herself. 19. I have already referred to the disputes that existed between the husband of the prosecutrix and the appellant. From the evidence, it appears that certain lands had been sold, but the case of P.W. 1 is that those lands were only mortgaged and not sold and that he had taken forcible possession of those lands from the appellant. 19. I have already referred to the disputes that existed between the husband of the prosecutrix and the appellant. From the evidence, it appears that certain lands had been sold, but the case of P.W. 1 is that those lands were only mortgaged and not sold and that he had taken forcible possession of those lands from the appellant. It has also come in evidence that survey proceedings were in progre; in or about the year 1980-81 and obviously the disputes continued. In this background, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no such incident took place as alleged and it was only with a view to disgrace and demoralize the appellant that a false case was concocted so that the appellant may be pressurized to give up his claims to those lands. Having regard to these circumstances, it would be only fair to insist upon some corroboration of the prosecution case. Having regard to the fact that the prosecutrix was medically examined within half an hour of the lodging of the report, the importance of the medical report cannot be lost sight of. 20. Before considering the medical report, I may notice a very significant statement taken from the prosecutrix at the fag end of her examination-in-chief, wherein she stated that after the occurrence and before her medical examination she had gone to urinate and has used water. 21. From the deposition of Dr. Mrs. Shakuntala Lal, P.W. 6, it appears that the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination at 2 p.m. on 19.12.82 and as noticed earlier the F.I.R. was lodged at 1.30 p.m. The lady doctor did not find any sign of rape. She found that the pubic hairs were not matted with semen and seminal stains were not found on the vagina and vulva. It was submitted that these stains may have been washed out because the prosecutrix had used water after urinating before she come for medical examination. What is important is the fact that the lady doctor who also took vaginal smear did not find any spermatozoa on its examination. She did not even find heads of spermatozoa. She was clear in her opinion that there was no sign of rape and in her opinion there had been no sexual intercourse recently. What is important is the fact that the lady doctor who also took vaginal smear did not find any spermatozoa on its examination. She did not even find heads of spermatozoa. She was clear in her opinion that there was no sign of rape and in her opinion there had been no sexual intercourse recently. It is no doubt true that the doctor found swelling in the middle of left thigh on the lateral aspect and abrasion on the right elbow joint. There is no evidence of any injury caused by dragging of the prosecutrix as alleged. The doctor clearly stated that matting of public hairs with semen may disappear, if water is used during call of nature and the- same can be said for the seminal stains on vulva and vagina also. However, there is no explanation about absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal smear. 22. The trial court has held that on account of the prosecutrix washing herself with water, the seminal stains on pubic hairs, vagina and vulva may have disappeared, but there in no explanation for the absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal smear. The trial judge observed that it is just possible that the appellant may not have been able to penetrate inside the vagina any my have discharged outside. Having regard to the evidence of the prosecutrix it is not possible to make such a conjecture, because on this aspect of the matter, her evidence is quite clear and specific. She clearly stated that the appellant discharged inside her and while doing so, he also pressed her. She further stated that she could also feel the discharge of semen inside. Infact more questions than were necessary were put to her, on this aspect of the matter and having regard to the evidence of P.W. 4, it would not be possible to hold that the appellant had not discharged inside and may have discharged outside. The other evidence of crucial nature which is missing in the instant case is the chemical examiners report with regard to the stains found on the petticoat of the prosecutrix. It is admitted by the Investigating Officer and has also been deposed to by some of the prosecution witnesses that the " which appeared to have seminal stains was seized by the Investigating Officer. It is admitted by the Investigating Officer and has also been deposed to by some of the prosecution witnesses that the " which appeared to have seminal stains was seized by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has deposed that the said seized stained " had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for a report. However, no such report has been produced before the Court and, therefore, the corroboration which such a report offer is missing. 23. In these circumstances, having considered all aspects of the matter, though strong suspicion does arise against the appellant, the evidence of the prosecutrix is contradicted by the medical evidence on the record and the absence of the chemical examiners report with regard to the alleged seminal stains on the Petticote of the prosecutrix creates a serious doubt in my mind about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. There is a lurking suspicion in my mind as to whether the prosecution case is true. It may be that it is true, but between what may be true and what must be true, there is a long distance to travel and this distance has to be covered by the prosecution with the aid of cogent and reliable evidence. I am not convinced that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 24. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. It appears that the appellant was granted bail on 6.6.90, his bail bonds are discharged.