JUDGMENT : P.K. Patra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.1.97 passed by Shri L.K. Mishra, Special Judge, Koraput/ Nowarangpur/Malkangiri/Rayagada at Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 9 of 1996, convicting the Appellant u/s 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and acquitting the Appellant of the charge u/s 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows: On 7.1.96 at about 4.00 P.M., the prosecutrix (P.W. 5), a student of Class-IX and aged about fourteen years, had been to the coconut tope adjacent to her house in village Gothalapadar under Gunupur Police Station in the district of Rayagada, to answer call of nature. She was wearing an old lungi (M.O. I) belonging to her father and holding a pot (dhala) of water and finding her alone, the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') aged about 35 years, and a divorcee, caught hold of her from the backside, laid her down on the ground, removed the lungi put on by her, gagged her mouth with his hand and committed rape on her, despite her resistance. After satisfying his lust, when the accused left the place, P.W. 5 returned back to her house through the back door and narrated the occurrence to her mother (P.W. 4). Thereafter her father (P.W. 1), paternal uncle and maternal uncles and two females reached and learnt about the occurrence from the mother (P.W. 4) which was confirmed by P.W. 5 The lungi (M.O.I) put on by P.W. 5 had been stained with blood and semen. The prosecutrix was taken to Gunupur which is at a distance of about 22 K. Ms. from village Gothalapadar, in a bus by her parents (P. Ws. 1 and 4) and her.uncles. They reached the house of P.W. 2, a teacher in Sirijhali M.E. School who was acquainted with P.W. 1, a teacher in Gumapaiguda U.P. School and P.W. 4, a teacher in Mangaguda U.P. School, but staying in village Gothalapadar with her children. Accompanied by P.W. 2, all of them went to Gunupur Police Station where P.W. 1 lodged written report (Ext. I) before P.W. 8, a Sub-Inspector of Police who was in charge of the O.I.C. of the Police Station. Accompanied by P.W. 2, all of them went to Gunupur Police Station where P.W. 1 lodged written report (Ext. I) before P.W. 8, a Sub-Inspector of Police who was in charge of the O.I.C. of the Police Station. P.W. 8 treated the same as an F.I.R., registered the case and took up investigation in the absence of the O.I.C. from the Police Station. He examined the witnesses present, seized the lungi (M.O. I) on production by P.W. 5 under the seizure list (Ext. 3). On 8.1.96 morning, he visited the spot, examined the two female witnesses who had reached the house of P.W. I when the occurrence was narrated. He sent the prosecutrix for medical examination to the Gunupur Subdivisional Hospital. P.W. 8 searched for the accused and apprehended him on 11.1.96, seized the lungi (M.O. II) which he had put on at the time of alleged occurrence, under the seizure list (Ext. IS). He arrested the accused and sent him for medical examination and on 12.1.96, forwarded him to Court in custody. On 3.2.96 the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Gunupur, on the direction of the Special Judge, Jeypore, sent the lungis (M. Os. I and II) and other materials collected from the victim and the accused for chemical examination, under the forwarding report, copy of which is marked as Ext. 18. The chemical examination report (Ext. 19) revealed that the lungi (M.O. I) of the victim contained stains of semen but no stains of blood, whereas the lungi (M.O.II) of the accused was not stained with semen or blood. The other articles were also not stained with semen. After completion of investigation, P.W. 8 submitted charge-sheet u/s 376 I.P.C. and 3(2) (v) of the Act, as the victim and her parents were "Gomango' (Sabar) by caste which comes under the Scheduled Tribe category and the accused stood his trial. The learned Special Judge convicted the accused u/s 376, I.P.C. whereas he acquitted the accused of the other charge. 3. The defence plea is one of denial and false implication due to previous enmity between the two families. Further, according to the accused, he found the victim and one Sarat Chand in a compromising position and threatened to disclose the matter before the parents of the victim for, which the case was foisted against him at the instance of Ratnakar. 4. Mr. P.K. Panda, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Further, according to the accused, he found the victim and one Sarat Chand in a compromising position and threatened to disclose the matter before the parents of the victim for, which the case was foisted against him at the instance of Ratnakar. 4. Mr. P.K. Panda, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri S. Pradhan, Additional Standing Counsel were heard at length. While Shri Panda contended that the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained for improper appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, the learned Additional Standing Counsel supported the impugned Judgment. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, prosecution has examined eight witnesses in all, of whom P.W. 5 is the victim girl, P.W. 1 is her father and P.W. 4 is her mother. P.W. 2 accompanied the victim girl and her parents to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.P. W. 3 is the doctor who medically examined the accused. P.W. 6 is the doctor who medical examined the victim girl. P.W. 7 is the Headmaster of Ghotalapadar High School who furnished the certificate regarding the date of birth of the victim girl. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer. The defence has examined one witness is support of its case. 6. The learned Special Judge on the statement of the victim girl (P.W. 5) and found corroboration from the statements of P. Ws. 1 and 4 and the medical evidence on record discarded the defence plea regarding the previous enmity between the two families. At the outset, certain features of the present case, which are worth noticing, are mentioned hereinafter, before scrutinising the statements of the witnesses, to find out whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained or not. 7. The alleged place of occurrence is a big coconut tope adjacent to the house of P.W. I, without any fence/boundary around it and accessible to public who were utilising the same for the purpose of answering the call of nature and the alleged occurrence took place at about 4.00 P.M. and it appears from the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) that no witness was present nearby when the accused committed rape on her and the spot where the victim was alleged by raped is at a distance of about 100 feet from her house. She has stated to have narrated the occurrence to her mother (P.W. 4) and thereafter to her father (P.W. 1), paternal and maternal uncles and two females, viz., Bijayalaxmi Choudhury and Bijayalaxmi Panda who have been withheld from the witness-box. P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5 have stated that P.W. 5 had put on the same lungi (M.O. I) and over it a frock (maxi) while travelling in the bus from Gothalapadar to Gunupur for the purpose of lodging the F.I.R. and produced the M.O. I before the I.O. in the police station after commencement of investigation, which appears to be abnormal for an educated girl reading in Class-IX whose parents are serving as teachers. Though P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5 have stated that stains of blood and semen were found on the lungi, the chemical examination report (Ext. 19) does not confirm the same, inasmuch as no stain of blood was found on M.O. I though stains of human semen were noticed. The defence has tried to elicit from the mouth of P.W. 1 that stains of semen might have been there on M.O. I due to his cohabitation with his wife, wearing the M.O. I, but P.W. 1 has denied the same. No question was put to P.W. 4 on this score. It is alleged by the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) that the accused removed the lungi put on by her before committing sexual intercourse with her which rules out the possibility of stains of blood and semen on M.O.I. Besides the plea of previous enmity between the two families, the further plea of the defence was that one Sarat Chanda, a cousin of the accused, had amorous relationship with P.W. 5 and while they were in compromising position, the accused saw them and threatened them to report the matter to the father of P.W. 5. While denying the above suggestion of the defence, in her statement in cross-examination, P.W. 5 has stated that the said Sarat Chanda was his class-mate and was visiting her house for the purpose of borrowing books. Her statement that Sarat was not talking to her and was talking to her elder brother, is incredible. The father and the mother of the prosecutrix have denied that the prosecutrix had any love affair with Sarat Chanda, a class-mate of the prosecutrix and that the said Sarat Chanda was visiting her house frequently. Her statement that Sarat was not talking to her and was talking to her elder brother, is incredible. The father and the mother of the prosecutrix have denied that the prosecutrix had any love affair with Sarat Chanda, a class-mate of the prosecutrix and that the said Sarat Chanda was visiting her house frequently. D.W. 1 has stated that when P.W. I came to village Gothalapadar, he stayed in the house of the accused on rent for about 6 to 7 years and since there was dispute regarding payment of rent, the two families did not pull on well and P.W. 1 left the rented house belonging to the accused. The learned Special Judge has discarded the statement of D.W. I holding that it is not creditworthy. No question on this score was put to P.W. 1 or to P.W. 4, but P.W. 5 has stated in cross-examination that one year prior to the occurrence they were staying as neighbours of the accused; but she has denied that due to quarrel between the two families, they vacated the house. While P.W. 1 has stated that immediately after the occurrence he called the "Panch" members and on their advice, he went to the police station, his wife (P.W. 4) and daughter (P.W. 5) have denied about the Panchayat. The above materials have not been noticed by the learned Special Judge. 8. The learned Special Judge found corroboration from the medical evidence on record, observing that the medical officer (P.W. 6) who examined the victim girl (P.W. 5) on 8.1.96 on police requisition and submitted her report (Ext. 8), found three linear scratches on the backside of P.W. 5 who also complained of pain from both sides of the back and at the time of urination and that such injuries could have been possible if somebody was laid on a rough surface and raped forcibly. P.W. 6 also found the hymen to be in tact; but swollen to some extent and tenderness in vaginal canal which may be possible in case of forcible rape. P.W. 6 also found the hymen to be in tact; but swollen to some extent and tenderness in vaginal canal which may be possible in case of forcible rape. But the learned Special Judge has overlooked the finding of P.W. 6 that on internal examination of private part of victim no abnormal stain was found over the external genitals or on the inner aspect of thigh or on the dresses used at the time of examination and no abnormal discharge was coming out on the vaginal or urethral orifices and the hymen was in tact. He has noticed the finding of P.W. 6 that the vaginal orifice freely admitted the middle finger, but with much difficulty two fingers and that swab collected from the posteral fornix of the vagina did not contain dead or living spermatozoa. The chemical examination report (Ext. 19) also reveals that no semen was found on the vaginal swab. The learned Special Judge also overlooked the medical examination report (Ext. 4) submitted by the medical officer (P.W. 3) who examined the accused on 11.1.96 and found no external injuries on the body of the accused, no stains of semen on his body or garments. As stated by the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) and her mother (P.W. 4), the place of occurrence is a rough and dry ground with small stones and pebbles on it. If the accused had laid down the victim girl on such ground and committed rape on her and if the victim girl sustained some scratch injuries on her back, the accused would have sustained some injuries on his knees, elbows etc.; but the medical evidence reveals that the accused had not sustained any external injuries on his body. Above all, the victim girl (P.W. 5) has stated that her hands were free when the accused committed rape on her, but she did not inflict any injury and did not try to push him away, though' she struggled to escape from the clutches of the accused. This does not appear to be in the normal course of conduct of a victim of rape. This does not appear to be in the normal course of conduct of a victim of rape. If her both the hands were free, she court have removed the hand of the accused from her mouth and tried to push him away and run away to her house which is stated to be at a distance of about 100 feet and she could have also raised hullah to draw the attention of passersby or the inmates of her house. But she has not done so. She has gone to the extent of stating that the accused gagged her mouth with one hand till completion of sexual act which lasted about 10 to 15 minutes and that her legs were separated by the accused which appears to be improbable and cannot be believed for a moment. Thus, due to the infirmities and improbabilities, the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) is not free from doubt and cannot be held to be truthful and unimpeachable and it will be quite hazardo place reliance on her sole testimony, without any corroboration, to base a conviction of the accused. 9. It is well settled in law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence does not suffer from infirmities or is' not improbable and is found to be trustworthy and reliable and that corroboration is not necessary unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration and that corroboration is not a required rule and may be dispensed with whenever the Court is satisfied that it is safe to do so, and that the rule is not that the corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction, but there is necessity to corroboration as a matter of prudence. It is also well settled in law that absence of injury on the private part of the victim or stains of semen or spermatozoa is of no consequence and could not negative the offence of rape, but where the medical evidence was to the effect that there are no signs of recent intercourse or injury on the girl's private part and where it is clear that the prosecutrix is not a reliable witness or is a willing party to sexual intercourse, it would not be safe to convict the accused on her uncorroborated testimony. 10. 10. In the present case, considering the circumstances and features of the case discussed earlier and the infirmities and improbabilities in the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W. 5), the story of alleged rape is found to be most suspicious and doubtful, for which reliance cannot be placed on the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) and hence conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. The learned Special Judge, while arriving at the culpability of the accused, did not consider the above aspects of the case and has not appreciated the evidence on record properly. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and the accused will be entitled to an acquittal. The learned Special Judge has well discussed the law while acquitting the accused of the charge u/s 3 (2) (v) of the Act and there is no scope for interference in the said finding. 11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 27.11.97 passed by the learned Special Judge, Koraput/ Nowarangpur/Malkangiri/Rayagada at Jeypore in T.R. Case No. 9 of 1996 convicting the accused of the charge u/s 376 (1), I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years is set aside. The Appellant is found not guilty and is acquitted of the charge. He be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is otherwise not required, in any other case. Final Result : Allowed