JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The Appellants, two in number (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') have assailed the judgement and order of conviction recorded against them by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Anandapur, in S.T. Case No. 31/53 of 1992 whereby they have been convicted u/s 379(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to three months RI. 2. Prosecution case unfurled during trial may succinctly be state thus: The victim (name being withheld), an Adibasi girl aged 17 to 18 years, hails from a remote village of the district of Keonjhar. Deceased Pandu Munda, father of Sardar Munda (P.W.2), was her father's elder brother. On the fateful day, Le. 24.10.1991 in the evening hours, she was going to the house of SardarMunda, to attend the funeral ceremony of deceased Pandu Munda. While she was proceeding the accused persons who were sitting on a rock, caned her to come to them. When she did not respond to their call, they forcibly dragged her to nearby stream (Nala) and sexually molested her one after another against her will. They having satisfied their lust they threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone they would kill her. She then came to the house of her brother-in-law Danda Munda (P.W.6) and narrated the incident to him, his wife and Ors. and stayed for the night there. Since her wearing apparels had been drenched with mud and water she was given a saree to put on. Next day she went back home and narrated the incident to her mother. As there was no male member in her family, she reported the incident to the police on 1.11.1991. Prasanta Kumar Mishra, S.I. of Police, Ghasipura P.S. (P.W.9) reduced her report into writing, treated the same as F.I.R and on the direction of the Inspector-in-charge of the said police station, proceeded with investigation. In course of investigation, he examined witnesses, sent the prosecutrix and the accused persons for medical examination and then handed over charge of investigation to one S.C. Dora, Inspector of Police who submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons to stand their trial u/s 376 (2)(g), Indian Penal Code. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial and false implication due to village dispute. 4. 3. The plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial and false implication due to village dispute. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons strenuously contended that there being no independent corroboration to the prosecutrix's version that she was sexually molested by the accused persons, the order of conviction and sentence is unsustainable, more particularly when the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. He would further urge that there was delay in putting law into motion, inasmuch as according to the prosecution the incident happened on 24.10.1991 and F.I.R was lodged on 1.11.1991 and 8 days' delay having not been properly explained, the prosecution case should have been viewed with suspicion. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand submitted that the learned trial Court thoroughly being raised in this appeal by the accused persons and consequently recorded a finding of guilt which needs no interference in the present appeal. 5. In a case of rape positive finding of the doctor is a corroborative piece of evidence that helps the Court to arrive at a right 'conclusion. In the present case the victim was sent for medical examination in usual course and the doctor, P.W.8 on examining her opined that there was no symptom of recent sexual intercourse. This opinion was based on the fact that no inquiry would fond on her private part. It may be noted, the medical examination was not conducted immediately after the incident. There was delay of days and this occasioned because of delayed lodging of the report. So it was quite natural that the injury, if any, the victim had sustained on her private part had been healed up by the time she was medically examined. In this view of the matter, the opinion expressed by P.W. 8 as aforesaid will not affect the prosecution case if victim's version that she was subjected to forcible intercourse by the accused persons is otherwise found to be true and trustworthy. As to what value should be attached to the evidence of a victim of sexual assault which is not supported by medical evidence, reference may be made to the decision of the apex Court reported in Ranjit Hazarika Vs. State of Assam where their Lordships on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix affirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. State of Assam where their Lordships on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix affirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the accused. The relevant observation made in the said judgment is extracted as under: Neither the non-rupture of the hymen nor the absence of injuries on her private parts, therefore, belies the testimony of the prosecutrix particularly when we find that in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, nothing has been brought out to doubt her veracity or to suggest as to why she would falsely implicate the Appellant and put her own reputation at stake. The opinion of the doctor that no rape appeared to have been committed, was based only on the absence of rupture of the hymen and injuries on the private parts of the prosecutrix. This opinion cannot throw out an otherwise cogent arid trustworthy evidence of the prosecutrix Now coming to the evidence of the victim, it may be noted that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and hails from a remote, village of the district of Keonjhar. She had no axe to grind against the accused persons and to falsely rope them in the case. Her evidence would reveal that on the date of the incident she was going to another village to attend obsequies of her father's elder brother on a forest road and finding her alone and taking advantage of her helplessness, those two accused persons forcibly ravished her one after another. As stated by her, she could not resist since while one was committing rape" the other was forcibly holding her hands and in that process both satisfied their sexual lust. After the incident, she went to the house of Danda Munda, P.W. 6, her brother-in-law, where she was given a saree to put on as the saree which she had worn was drenched with water. She narrated the incident to P.W.6 and remained for the night in his house. She was subjected to searching and incisive cross-examination by the defence, but nothing was elicited to impeach her credibility or to cast a doubt on her veracity. The learned trial Judge on a consideration of the totality of her evidence observed that since her statement does not suffer from any infirmity and the probability factor does not render her evidence unworthy of credence, there is no reason to insist for corroboration. The learned trial Judge on a consideration of the totality of her evidence observed that since her statement does not suffer from any infirmity and the probability factor does not render her evidence unworthy of credence, there is no reason to insist for corroboration. On a reappraisal of the evidence, I also do not find any reason to take a contrary view and to throw her evidence overboard. It is a well settled principle of law that in an offence of rape conviction can lie on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the victim if the same inspires confidence. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others: 1996 (1) Cri 37 (SC), on the question whether corroboration should be insisted upon before relying on the statement of the victim of rape, the Court observed: xxx The Court must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed consideration which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases 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 an 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 injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not 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 person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. x x x In the aforesaid judgment reliance was placed on the earlier decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandra prakash Kewal Chand Jain: AIR Supreme Court 658, where the Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment observed thus: A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness u/s 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as it attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care incitation must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant witness and no more. She is undoubtedly a competent witness u/s 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as it attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care incitation must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. As discussed earlier, the evidence of the victim though cogent and trustworthy to base conviction, yet for abundant caution, I searched for corroboration from the other available evidence. It may be reiterated, immediately after the incident, the victim went to the house of her brother-in-law Danda Munda, P.W. 6 and narrated her awful story. Danda Munda, P.W. 6 while being examined, stated that in the night of occurrence the victim came to his house and on being asked by his wife, she narrated that she had been ravished by the accused persons. The immediate disclosure of the incident being a relevant fact admissible u/s 8 of the Evidence Act gives to the victim's version of sexual molestation. Besides P. Ws.. The immediate disclosure of the incident being a relevant fact admissible u/s 8 of the Evidence Act gives to the victim's version of sexual molestation. Besides P. Ws.. 1 and 6, the prosecution examined some more witnesses of whom P.W. 3 is a material witness. As deposed to by him, on the date of incident while he was going to the house of Pandu Munda to attend obsequies he found that the accused persons were dragging the victim. On reading of his whole evidence, some doubt arises about his conduct, inasmuch as when he saw the victim being dragged, he did not react nor came to her rescue. This conduct of his is against normal human behaviour. When a young girl was found being forcibly dragged by two young men, it was quite but natural that one would raise protest and attempt to release her. In the present case P.W. 3 neither protested nor came to the rescue of the victim. His silence may be for various reasons. It might be that sine he was alone and the accused persons were two young men, he apprehended of being assaulted if he would resist. Needless to mention, different persons react differently, when an incident occurs in their presence. Some rush to the rescue of the victim while others run away to keep themselves as far away from the spot as possible. P.W. 3 in the present case comes under the second category. Therefore, his evidence cannot be brushed aside merely because he acted as a silent spectator and did not raise voice when he saw the victim being dragged. On a reading of his evidence, I find that he is a truthful witness and deposed what he had seen on the date of occurrence. So, his evidence as stated above, is a corroborative evidence that lends assurance to the victim's version of sexual assault by the accused persons. Regard being had to the materials on record as discussed above, I concur with the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial Court. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed