JUDGMENT R.L.Khurana, J. : The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused, stands convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur vide judgment, dated 31.7.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 35-R/7 of 1995/94, as under :- Sr No. 1. 2. Offence for which convicted 376I.P.C. 506I.P.C. Sentence imposed. Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/- In default of fine simple imprisonment for. Six months. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine simple Imprisonment for six months. In addition to the above sentences, the accused was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the prosecutrix Kumari Nisha. The two substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution story, briefly, may be stated thus. During the year 1993 the accused was a teacher in Government Primary School, Khaneri. The prosecutrix then was a student of class -IV in the said school. 2. On 20.11.1993 at about 12.55 P.M., the prosecutrix PW 3 Nisha lodged a report at Police Station, Rampur, in the following term : "I am studying in class IV in Government Primary School, Khaneri. Shri Kant Shekhari is posted as a teacher in our school for the last about three years. About 6/7 months back, after the school hours, the said teacher asked me not to return home and that I should go only after solving one question. When all the students of the school had left, he made me lie in a room and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with me. I kept on refusing, wept and cried. However, since the doors of the school were closed, none could hear my cries. He then told me that if I dared to narrate the incident to anyone, he would throw me into a river. After about a month thereafter he again deceptively took me to Chuha bagh and committed sexual intercourse with me under the bushes. I out of fear never informed by parents. Thereafter 1 became sick and my mother Dhianu Devi took me to Rampur Hospital. After examination, the doctor at R.H. Rampur told me and my mother that I was pregnant. Shri Kant Shekhari had forcibly and without my consent subjected me to sexual intercourse as a result I have became pregnant. Shri Kant Shekhari, teacher, has committed a wrong act with a student. After examination, the doctor at R.H. Rampur told me and my mother that I was pregnant. Shri Kant Shekhari had forcibly and without my consent subjected me to sexual intercourse as a result I have became pregnant. Shri Kant Shekhari, teacher, has committed a wrong act with a student. Legal action be taken against him." 3. On the basis of such report, a case under Section 376 and 506, Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide F.I.R. No. 356/93 (Ex.PW 3/A). 4. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix PW 3 Kumari Nisha was got medically examined on 20.11.1993 at 4 P.M. Such medical examination was carried out by PW 1 Dr.Usha Bharwaj of Referral Hospital, Rampur. She observed as under :- "At the time of examination the girl was. Conscious, well] oriented to time and place. Pulse: 70 per minute B.P 100/70 mm-of Hg. Respiration 18 per minute. Breasts well developed. Axillary and public hair well developed No evidence of any external injury on breasts, abdomen, inner aspect of thigh. Per abdominal: Height of uterous 28 weeks. Cephalix presentation. FHS regular. Uterous relaxed. L.M.P. 7 months back. Exact date not known. Per veginal examination : Public hair present, not matted. External genitialia well developed. Hymen ruptured. Vagina admitted two fin-gers. No pain felt. Smear taken from posterior vaginal fornix. Smear No.5175 - No sperms seen. Opinion - In my opinion her period of gestation was 28 weeks. She was habitual to sexual intercourse. For age verification referred to Radiologist, Ripon Hospital. Shimla." 5. The medico legal certificate issued by PW 1 in respect of such medical examination of the prosecutrix is Ex.PW 1/B. The radiological examination fixes the age of the prosecutrix. as on the date of examination, between 15 and 16-1/2 years. 6. The accused was also subjected to medical examination and was found capable of performing sexual intercourse. On the completion of investigation, the accused was put to trial for the offences under Section 376 and 506, Indian Penal Code. 7. The accused pleaded not guilt}. His case is that of denial simpliciter. He pleaded false implication. 8. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the material placed before him came to the conclusion that a case for t he offences under Section 376 and 506, Indian Penal Code, stood proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 7. The accused pleaded not guilt}. His case is that of denial simpliciter. He pleaded false implication. 8. The learned Sessions Judge upon consideration of the material placed before him came to the conclusion that a case for t he offences under Section 376 and 506, Indian Penal Code, stood proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused for such offences as aforesaid. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 10. It is now well settled that the testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused, where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to the injury. The evidence of a victim of sexual offence stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to extent is even more reliable. Just as witness who has sustained some in the occurrence, -which are not self inflicted, is considered to beJ1 ,n? witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the w of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroborative. Not with standing. Corroborative evidence is not an imperarative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration is only a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It cannot be overlooked that a woman or a girl Subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime, but is a victim of another mans lust. Therefore, it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inference have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Inference have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. (See : State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 1393)]. 11. Examined in the light of the above said principle, the testimony of the prosecutrix as PW 3 in the present case cannot be made the basis for conviction of the accused without necessary corroboration. The testimony of the prosecutrix neither is reliable nor it inspires confidence for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 12. The first version as given by the prosecutrix on 20.11.1993 to the police vide F.I.R. Ex. PW 3/A has been quoted above in extenso. A bare perusal of the same shows that it speaks of two occurrences, that is, first, which took place in the class room of the school about 6/7 months before 20.11.1993 and the second took place about a month thereafter under the bushes at Chahu bagh. In other words, the first occurrence is alleged to have taken place sometime in April/May, 1993, and the second occurrence is alleged to have taken place sometime in the month of May/June. 1993. No specific date(s) in respect of the alleged two occurrences have been given. 13. As against this version coming Ex.PW 3/A, the prosecutrix while deposing in Court as PW 3. has stated that she was subjected to sexual assault by the accused on the first occasion in the school on 28.5.1993 and that she was again sexually assaulted by the accused on the second occasion about a week thereafter in his residential room at Chuha bagh where she had been called alongwith three others days for cleaning and sweeping the said room. Thus, as PW 3 she has not only given the specific date of the alleged first occurrence, she has contradicted herself with regard to the date and place of the alleged second occurrence. As stated above, in Ex.PW 3/A the second occurrence is alleged to have taken place about a month after the first occurrence under the bushes. Thus, as PW 3 she has not only given the specific date of the alleged first occurrence, she has contradicted herself with regard to the date and place of the alleged second occurrence. As stated above, in Ex.PW 3/A the second occurrence is alleged to have taken place about a month after the first occurrence under the bushes. However, as PW 3 she has gone to state that the second occurrence had taken place about a week after the first occurrence in the residential room of the accused at Chuha bagh. The investigation officer also in the site plan Ex.PW 12/B has shown the second occurrence to have taken place in the room. 14. The prosecutrix as PW 3 has stated that the date 28.5.1993 (when first occurrence had taken place) was given to her by some person. Who is the id person ? How he came to know that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual on that date? Was he an eye witness? All these question have remained ^red. , Two material admissions have come in the statement of the prosecutix namely : (a) she had her menses about a month after 28.5.1983; and (b) a female child was bron to her on 28.5.1994. 16. At t he time of the medical examination, the prosecutrix was found to have a pregnancy of about 28 weeks, that is, of about seven months. Such medical examination by PW 1 Dr. Usha Bhardwaj was carried out on 20.11.1993. Calculating the period of pregnancy as opined by PW 1, the prosecutrix must have conceived some time in the month of April, 1993 and under normal circumstances she was expected to deliver the child on completion of the gestation period of 280 days some time in the month of January or February, 1994. 17. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix had become pregnant as a result of the sexual assaults committed by the accused. 18. As stated above, the prosecutrix has categorically stated as PW 3 that she was sexually assaulted by the accused on the first occasion on 28.5.1993 and about a week thereafter on the second occasion. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix had become pregnant as a result of the sexual assaults committed by the accused. 18. As stated above, the prosecutrix has categorically stated as PW 3 that she was sexually assaulted by the accused on the first occasion on 28.5.1993 and about a week thereafter on the second occasion. If the period of pregnancy as opined by PW 1 is accepted and relied upon, then it cannot be said that the prosecutrix became pregnant as a result of sexual assault by the accused since both the occurrences as per the prosecutrix herself had taken place in May /June, 1993. 19. While stating that a female child was born to her on 28.5.1994, the prosecutrix has hastened to state that the child was born to her after nine months, of the conception. In other words, the prosecutrix must have conceived some time in the month of September, 1993. This fact also belies the prosecutrix version that she became pregnant as a result of the sexual assaults committed upon her by the accused on the alleged two occasions. Besides, the admission coming in the statement of the prosecutrix that she had her menses about a month after 28.5.1993 also goes to show that she became pregnant some -time after June, 1993. This also castes a shadow of doubt on the truthfulness of her version. 20. The birth entry in respect of the female child born to the prosecutrix has not been brought on the record. This was a material piece of evidence. Failure on the part of the prosecution to do so laids to the only inference that had the same been produced, the same would not have supported the version of the prosecutrix that she became pregnant as a result of the alleged sexual assaults by the accused. 21. While deposing about the alleged second occurrence, the prosecutrix has; deposed that three boys of her class, namely, Kamal, Hoshiar and Rajinder were taken by the accused to his residential room in Chuha bagh for cleaning the room-and that after the cleaning of the room the said -three boys were asked to go but she was asked to remain behind. While deposing about the alleged second occurrence, the prosecutrix has; deposed that three boys of her class, namely, Kamal, Hoshiar and Rajinder were taken by the accused to his residential room in Chuha bagh for cleaning the room-and that after the cleaning of the room the said -three boys were asked to go but she was asked to remain behind. None of the three boys has been examined by the prosecution to show that in fact the prosecutrix and the said three boys were called to his residential room by the accused on the relevant date. 22. There has been a considerable delay in making the report to the police: The explanation put forth by the prosecution is that the prosecutrix was threatened by the accused that she would be thrown into a river if she dared to narrate the occurrence to anyone and that out of fear the prosecutrix did not tell her parents or any other person about having been sexually assaulted by the accused till her pregnancy was detected. "I 23. The question thus failing for consideration is when the pregnancy came to be known to the parents of the prosecutrix assuming that she had not : narrated the sexual assaults on the part of the accused to her parents or any other person. 24. PW 1 Dr. Usha Bhardwaj has stated that prior to 20.11.1993; she had the occasion to examine the prosecutrix on 6.11.1993 when she was brought to her by PW 2 Smt. Dhianu and that she had found the prosecutrix to be pregnant and such pregnancy was of about 26 weeks. Ex. DA is the prescription slip qua the medical examination of the prosecutrix by PW 1 on 6.11.1993. 25. The prosecutrix, however, has gone to state that she was taken to : Rampur hospital by her mother PW 4 Smt.Dhiano Devi in the month of September, 1993 when she was told by the Doctor about the pregnancy. She has further stated that she had then, upon enquiries having been made, told her mother that the conception was due to her teacher, that is, the accused. 26. PW 4, Smt. Dhiano, the mother of the prosecutrix. has deposed that she had met PW 7 Smt. Krishana. She has further stated that she had then, upon enquiries having been made, told her mother that the conception was due to her teacher, that is, the accused. 26. PW 4, Smt. Dhiano, the mother of the prosecutrix. has deposed that she had met PW 7 Smt. Krishana. member of the Panchayat after about a month after she had gone to the hospital with the prosecutrix and that the report was made to the police only on the asking and advice of PW 7 and one Virender. If the prosecutrix was taken to the hospital for the first time in September. 1993 (as deposed by PW 3 the prosecutrix). then PW 4 must have met PW 7 Smt.Krishna sometime in October, 1993. However, this version of PW 4 stands contradicted by PW 7 who has gone to state that PW 4 Dhiano Devi had met heron 19.11.1993. 27. Evidence coming on record proves beyond any doubt that the factum of pregnancy of the prosecutrix came to be known to PW 4 Smt. Dhiano in September 1993. Still about two moths were taken in making the report to the police. This delay of about two months has remained unexplained. 28. The learned Sessions Judge has laso erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecutrix at the relevant time was below the age of 16 years. In coming to such conclusion the learned Sessions Judge has placed. much reliance on Ex.PW 6/A to Ex.PW 6/C and Ex.PW 7/A, wherein the date of birth of prosecutrix is shown as 10.4.1979. Be it stated that the entries as to the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 10.4.1979 recorded in Ex.PW 6/A to Ex.PW 6/C are shown to have been made on-the basis of Ex.PW 7/A, the extract taken from the "Parivar Register" in respect of the family of one Jiunu. 29. PW 5 Jiunu son of Banku is the father of the prosecutrix. he has deposed that he has three children. Eldest child is a daughter named Chitra. The second child is son Madan and the third is the prosecutrix Nisha. A perusal of Ex.PW 7/A shows the family of Jiunu. Named therein, consists of this wife, three sons, two daughters, two daughters -in-law and six grand children. In Ex.PW 7/A the fathers name of Jiunu is hot recorded. 30. Eldest child is a daughter named Chitra. The second child is son Madan and the third is the prosecutrix Nisha. A perusal of Ex.PW 7/A shows the family of Jiunu. Named therein, consists of this wife, three sons, two daughters, two daughters -in-law and six grand children. In Ex.PW 7/A the fathers name of Jiunu is hot recorded. 30. In the absence of fathers name of Jiunu and the difference in the number of children as stated by PW5 and as record in Ex. 7/A, it can be safely concluded that Ex.PW 7/A does not pertain to the family of PW 5. Apart from this, PW 5 has sated that the name of his elder daughter is Chitra. In Ex. PW 7/A no daughter of Jiunu recorded therein is having; he name "Chitra". The names of two daughters have been respectively recorded therein as "Sumitra" and "Nisha". If Ex.PW 7/A does not pertain to PW 5 Jiunu and his family, no reliance can be placed thereon as also Ex.PW 6/A to Ex.PW 6/C. 31. PW 8 Chetan Ram is the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Racholi. Though he has deposed that the birth of the prosecutrix was duly recorded in the register of births and deaths being maintained by the Panchayat, surprisingly engough no such entry has been produced and proved in the present case. Only an extract of the "Parivar Register" has been produced. Therefore in the absence of the original birth entry in respect of the prosecutrix, no reliance can be placed on Ex. PW 6/A to Ex.PW 6/C. 32. The only other evidence available on record as to the age of the prosecutrix is in the form of radiological examination whereby the bony age of the prosecutrix has been found to be between 16 and 16-1/2 years as on the date of her examination, that is. 23.11.1990. 33. It is well settled that medical evidence in the form of ossification test as to determination of age is not conclusive. Besides, there can be an error of plus/minus of two years on either side. Therefore, on the basis of radiological examination the age of the prosecutrix could be between 17 and 18-1/2 years as on the date of her examination. She would be therefore, above the age of sixteen as on the date of the alleged first occurrence and thus competent to given consent to sexual act. Therefore, on the basis of radiological examination the age of the prosecutrix could be between 17 and 18-1/2 years as on the date of her examination. She would be therefore, above the age of sixteen as on the date of the alleged first occurrence and thus competent to given consent to sexual act. As PW 3. the prosecutrix has no where stated that she was sexually assaulted on the two occasions by the accused without her consent or that the consent was due to some deception on the part of the accused. 34. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned judgment dated 31.7.1996 are set aside and the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 376 and 506. Indian Penal Code. Tiie accused is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and discharged. The amounts of fine and compensation, if already deposited., shall be refunded to the accused forthwith. The case property be dealt with in accordance with law.