This is an appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.1997 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge No.l, West Tripura at Agartala in case No. ST (WT/A) 113 of 1996 convicting the accused-appellant under section 376 IPC and sentencing him there under to simple imprisonment for 8 (eight) years. 2. On the night of 17.5.93 at 1.20 AM an FIR was lodged at East Agartala Police Station by Smti Anita Saha to the effect that around mid-night at about 12.30 AM the accused Manik Debnath jumped on her, gagged her mouth with cloth and raped her forcibly. Although she raised alarm, due to heavy shower no one could hear her alarm. She informed her neighbours about the incident soon after the accused left the place after committing rape on her. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered a case under section 376 IPC against the accused and on completion of investigation charge-sheeted him under section 376 IPC. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under the said section of law. 3. In the Court of Sessions, a charge under section 376 IPC was framed, read over and explained, the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses. The accused was examined under section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence and declined to adduce any evidence. The defence case was one of total denial. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the prosecution and the defence, learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 4. I have considered the record of the case and have heard Mr. AK Debnath,learned counsel for the accused-appellant and also Mr. Ghosh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 5. When the criminal chooses the victim, the hour, the place and the situation to strike, the evidence of the victim must naturally figure most prominently in the judicial search for the truth. Here the victims is a frail woman in her mid twenties c unable to resist the hour is midnight When all were fast asleep, the place is neighbours hut with bamboo door easily breakable, and the situation husband away from home leaving the victim unprotected with two kids and heavy downpour of rain when neighbours could not hear the victim's scream. The victim PW Smti Anita Saha told the Court that on the date of occurrence her husband, an employee in a restaurant, was away and she was sleeping with her two year's old daughter ® and seven month's old son. Around midnight her next door neighbour accused Manik Debnath entered into her hut by breaking the bamboo door, forcibly undressed her and raped her. She raised hue and cry. It was then raining cats and dogs and nobody came to rescue her. After committing rape on her, the accused ran away and she rushed to her neighbours and reported the whole matter to them. They accompanied her to the hospital and then to East Agartala Police Station where one of her neighbours PW 2 Pranab Sarma wrote the FIR Ext PI as dictated by her, Ext Pl/1 being her signature, Medical Officer of the Hospital examined her. When her husband returned home next day, she narrated the incident before him. He deserted her. 6. The above evidence of PW 1 has been fully corroborated by her neighbours PW 2 Pranab Sarma, PW 3 Smti Bani Chowhan and PW 4 Smti Sabita Saha. PW4 is his sister. PW 2 and PW 3 are not related to her. All of them (PWs 2, 3, 4) in one voice and with complete unanimity said that soon after the occurrence around midnight PW 1 went to their respective residence and reported to them that the accused Manik forcibly entered into her hut and raped her and that they all accompanied her to the hospital and then to East Agartala Police Station. PW 8 /2 added that in the police station as per her dictation he wrote the FIR Ext PI, Ext Pl/2 being his signature as scribe. PW 2 corroborated PW 1's statement that her husband deserted her after this incident of rape. PW 3 and PW 4 confirmed that at the time of occurrence around midnight it was raining cats and dogs. 7. The evidence of PW 6 Pran Krishna Das the Investigating Police Officer, reveals that within an hour of the occurrence during the night itself the victim PW 1 lodged the FIR Ext PI narrating the incident and specifically naming the accused Manik showing that his implication was not an after thought. 7. The evidence of PW 6 Pran Krishna Das the Investigating Police Officer, reveals that within an hour of the occurrence during the night itself the victim PW 1 lodged the FIR Ext PI narrating the incident and specifically naming the accused Manik showing that his implication was not an after thought. In any case, there is no question of PW 1 making any mistake as regards the identity of the accused, for he was next-door neighbour known to her since before the occurrence. All the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the defence, but nothing material has been elicited to discredit their evidence. I accept their evidence as substantially true. It is clear from their evidence that what the accused did with PW 1 he did against her will and without her consent. 8. Now, I address myself to the question whether what that accused did amounted to rape or an attempt to commit rape. The Explanation to section 375 IPC says, "Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." On the question of penetration, I would have liked to see the medical examination report. The Investigating Police Officer PW 6 deposed that he sent PW 1 to the hospital for medical examination. PW 1 also said that she was examined by a Medical Officer. But during the trial, this Medical Officer was away from the country in Libia and hence could not be examined, as a witness. Another Medical Officer PW 5 Pijush Kanti Das came to the witness box and said that the then Medical Officer Ashim Dutta examined PW 1, but did not deposed from the record of the examination report of Dr. Dutta nor exhibited that report. PW 5 exhibited a report Ext P3 made by Pathology Department of d the hospital saying that no spermatozoa was found in the vaginal swab. In view of the above, the offence of rape cannot be said to have been proved. However, the facts that around midnight the accused entered into the hut where PW 1 was sleeping by breaking the bamboo door, and used criminal force to undress her and she raised hue and cry have been amply proved. The evidence of the victim PW 1 coupled with other evidence on record leaves no room for doubt that the e accused attempted to commit rape on her. The evidence of the victim PW 1 coupled with other evidence on record leaves no room for doubt that the e accused attempted to commit rape on her. In State of Maharastra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain reported in 1990 Crl LJ 889 Supreme Court observed: “To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of the rare cases is to equate women who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. Courts must also realise that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling false charge concerning her chastity. The Court must not be oblivious of the emotional turmoil and the psychological injury that a prosecutrix suffers on being molested or raped. She suffers a tremendous sense of shame and the fear of being shunned by society and her near relatives including her husband.” 9. In the instant case, it is on record that the husband of the victims PW 1 deserted her after this incident. 10. In the result, the conviction of the accused appellant under section 376 IPC is converted into one under section 376/511 IPC, and the sentence awarded to him to eight years' simple imprisonment under section 376 IPC is modified into four year's rigorous imprisonment under section 376/511 IPC. The appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.