JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment & order dated 7.3.2000 passed by the learned trial Judge SC/ST & Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar Sessions Case No.60/1999 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellant for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989") but convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC & 3(1 )(xii) of the Act of 1989 as follows : 2. "Under Section 376 IPC 7 years R.l. and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default 6 months additional R.l.Under Section 3(1 )(vii) of SC/ST Act 5 years R.l. and fine of Rs.500/- in default 3 months additional R.l. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.6.1999 PW2 Kishanlal lodged a written report Ex.P/2 with the police that on 14.6.1999 at about 9.00 A.M. his wife PW7 Rajjo Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the prosecutrix") had gone somewhere but on previous evening at about 7.00 P.M. he came to know that she was seen in the company of the accused appellant behind Pahari and thereafter, he went to that place but he did not find her there. But, on 18.6.1999 he went again and he found the prosecutrix PW7 Rajjo Devi sitting there but seeing him she hide herself and entered the house of one Gujar and thereafter when he entered the house of one Gujar he met prosecutrix PW7 thereafter, prosecutrix told him that on 17.6.1999 Kamla Dhobin PW4 left her in the Pahari of the accused appellant and in the night at about 10-11 PM when she was sleeping, accused appellant came to her and after opening her Salwar committed rape with her. On this report, police registered the case of PW7 and got her medically examined vide Medical Report Ex.P/6 and vide Ex.P/10 (Fard Giraftari) the accused appellant was arrested and the challan was filed against him the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alwar and therefrom the case was committed to the court of Sessions. 4. On this report, police registered the case of PW7 and got her medically examined vide Medical Report Ex.P/6 and vide Ex.P/10 (Fard Giraftari) the accused appellant was arrested and the challan was filed against him the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Alwar and therefrom the case was committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The learned trial Judge framed the charge for offence under section 376 IPC and 3(1 )(xii) of the Act of 1989 or 27.9.1999 and for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 on 23.2.2000 and charges were read over to the accused appellant who denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial,9 witnesses were produced by the prosecution and thereafter, the statements of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.PC. were recorded. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and imposed sentence upon the accused appellant as above. 6. Hence, aggrieved by the said judgment & order of the trial court, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant in this court. 7. In this appeal, the main submissions of Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant is that the findings of the learned Sessions Judge by which he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sec.376 IPC are erroneous one as it was a case of consent hence, he prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the accused appellant should be acquitted of the said charge. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the learned trial Judge. 9. Before proceeding further, it may be stated herein that in this case medical evidence is no as no injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix and she is a major of 30 years. As a general, corroboration of he testimony of the prosecutrix in rape case is not required as a rule required in the case of woman having attained majority who is habitual to sexual intercourse. 10. Apart from this, the main evidence in all such cases is that of the Victim herself. In practice a conviction for rape almost entirely depends on the credibility of the woman. 10. Apart from this, the main evidence in all such cases is that of the Victim herself. In practice a conviction for rape almost entirely depends on the credibility of the woman. It is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant, should in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the complainant is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. 11. Further, ordinarily where forcible sexual intercourse is committed there would be injury on the person of the victim. Absence of any injury on the person of the victim. Absence of any injury on the person of a woman alleged to have been raped may go a long way to indicate that the alleged intercourse was a peaceful affair and the story of a stiff resistance put up by the prosecutrix is false or an afterthought. The Court is aware that in absence of such injury, it cannot be concluded that the incident had not taken place of that the sexual intercourse was committed with the consent of the prosecutrix. It always depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Apart from the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and court must be aware its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual moralizations. 13. Hence, in my view, keeping in mind the above principles, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Alwar are to be appreciated. 14. PW7 Rajjo Devi had stated in Examination-in-chief that in the night when she was sleeping, accused appellant came and abraded her and the accused after opening her Salwar sexed with her against her will and, thereafter, putting her clothe wearings off again sexed with her and in the morning at about 5.00 A.M. Baba (the accused appellant) left that place.Thereafter her husband PW2 Kishanlal came there and on seeing there, she went to the house of one Gujar and where her husband came there and thereafter at about 9.00 A.M. her husband came alongwith police then, she narrated her the story that accused appellant committed rape with her against her will. 15. 15. In Cross-examination, she commits the following facts : (1) It is also correct to say that when she was having sex with another person in night she did not see the face of that man and when that man left that place in the morning she saw his face. (2) It is also correct to say that when accused appellant embraced her and committed sex with her she did not say anything. (3) It is also correct to say that when accused appellant was having sex with her, she neither bite him nor put her nails into his body. (4) It is also correct to say that she did not receive any injury on any part of her person when the sex was going on. (5) It is also correct to say that after having sex with her accused appellant slept with her and she also slept alongwith him. (6) It is also correct to say that she went outside the room for passing urine and returned back again in same room and slept with him and thereafter accused appellant had sex with her again and thereafter, both slept together. (7) It is also correct to say that in the morning, she did not find Baba (accused appellant) at that place. (8) It is also correct to say that in the morning she did not make any hue and cry nor she narrated the incident to anybody. (9) It is also correct to say that after seeing her husband, PW-2, she went to the house of one Gujar to hide herself. (10) It is also correct to say that she did not talk with accused appellant and therefore the accused appellant was not aware of which caste she was belonging. 16. In my view, if the victim (prosecutrix) is unwilling to yield the sexual intercourse, she would have received the injuries on her person. The absence of any injury on the body of the prosecutrix, goes to draw an inference that she was the consenting party to coitus. The fact that she had sex twice in night goes to show that she was consenting party from the very beginning and whatever was done by the accused appellant with her was done with her own accord. The medical evidence in the present case is also negative and does not corroborate the allegation of rape. The fact that she had sex twice in night goes to show that she was consenting party from the very beginning and whatever was done by the accused appellant with her was done with her own accord. The medical evidence in the present case is also negative and does not corroborate the allegation of rape. Apart from this, the fact that after seeing her husband PW2 Kishanlal, the prosecutrix (PW7) Rajjo Devi intered the house of one Gujar to hide herself and this is of her conduct goes to show that whatever was done was with her consent. The fact that when accused appellant left the place in the morning the prosecutrix did not make any hue and cry and she did not even told the happenings of the night to anybody also goes to show that she had been the consenting party. 17. Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, statement of prosecutrix PW7 that she was forcibly raped cannot be accepted and the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge for offence under section 376 IPC are liable to be set-aside and the accused is entitled to acquittal for offence under section 376 IPC. 18. So far as application of the provisions of the Act of 1989 so as to connect the accused for commission of the offence under section 3(1 )(xii) of the SC/ST Act 1989 is concerned, these is not an single iota of evidence of the prosecution that the accused appellant had prior knowledge of the fact that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe rather, in the present case, PW7 has categorically admitted in her statement herself that in the night when she having sex with accused appellant, accused appellant did not know her caste. 19. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment & order dated 7.3.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST & Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No.60/1999 are set-aside. Accordingly, the accused appellant is acquitted of the charges for offence U/Ss. 376 IPC & 3(1)(xii) of the Act of 1989. The accused appellant Murli Giri is corrected to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******