JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J.-This. appeal is directed at the instance of appellant named above against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.1997 passed in Sessions Trial No. 683 of 1996 by Shri Ravindra Nath Verma, 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(e) of the Indian Penal Code and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the F.I.R. of P.W. 5, Behulia Devi, a pregnant woman aged about 18 years and the alleged victim of ravishment, recorded by P.W. 12, Deo Narayan Saha, OIC Arki P.S., who is also the I.O. of this case, on 8.6.1996 at 18.00 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 11.00 hours in the paddy mill situate in village Naurhi, P.S.-Arki, Khunti, District-Ranchi and the F.I.R. has been received on 10.6.1996 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 5, Behulia Devi, the informant was residing in her parent's house in village-Naurhi with her husband P.W. 2 Ashanath Machhuwa and there is a paddy mill of the appellant in the said village. It is alleged that the informant went to the said paddy mill at 11 o'clock in the day on 8.6.1996 with paddy for milling rice and she found two or three persons already present there with their paddy for milling. It is alleged that the appellant sent her to the shop of one Radha Sahu for purchasing indigo and when she returned from the said shop, the aforesaid two or three persons had left the paddy mill by then. It is alleged that the appellant forcibly caught her hand and dragged her inside the room of the paddy mill and felled her on the ground and after pulling up her clothes, ravished her inspite of her entreaty and cry and the informant thereafter came to her house weeping and narrated the incident to her mother who in turn informed in respect thereof to P.W. 6, Devendra Nath, P.W. 8, Padmakar Munda, P.W.7 Gandharb Singh Munda and P.W. 10 Subodh Chandra Roy and one Sheo Charan Swansi. It is also alleged that there were seminal stains on her clothes. It is also alleged that there were seminal stains on her clothes. It is also alleged that the informant has also narrated the incident to her husband P.W. 2, Ashanath Machhuwa. 4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against him and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this got up case by the informant at the instance of Randeep Acharya, Rameshwar Acharya and Delip Aacharya, who were inimical to him and the enmity between them is existing and alive and they figure as accused in the case regarding the murder of the two brothers of this appellant. 5. The prosecution has, in all, examined twelve witnesses to substantiate its case. P.W. 5, Behulia Devi is the informant of this case and the victim of the alleged ravishment and she is said to be carrying pregnancy of 28 weeks duration. P.W. 1, Chhote Machhuwa, P.W. 3 Ropni and P.W.2, Ashanath Machhuwa are the father, mother and husband respectively of the informant and they are the hearsay witnesses of the alleged occurrence and they were told about the incident by the informant. P.W. 6, Davendra Nath Manjhi, P.W. 7 Gandharb Singh Munda, P.W. 8 Padmakar Singh Munda and P.W. 10 Subodh Chandra Roy are also the hearsay witnesses and they were told about the alleged occurrence by P.W. 3 though P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 have been tendered. P.W. 11, Latan Hazam has also been tendered in this case by the prosecution. P.W. 9, Sunil Machhuwa is a witness of the production-cum-seizure list of the white petticoat allegedly containing seminal stains thereon and his signature is Ext. 2 on the said seizure list. P.W. 4, Dr. Umeshwari Kumari has examined P.W. 5, the informant on 10.6.1996 at 12.45 hours and her report per her pen is Ext. 1. P.W. 12, Deo Narayan Sah is the I.O. of this case and he has proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 3). No oral and documentary evidence has been brought on the record on behalf of the defence. 6. Umeshwari Kumari has examined P.W. 5, the informant on 10.6.1996 at 12.45 hours and her report per her pen is Ext. 1. P.W. 12, Deo Narayan Sah is the I.O. of this case and he has proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 3). No oral and documentary evidence has been brought on the record on behalf of the defence. 6. Relying upon the evidence of P.W. 5, Behulia Devi, the informant, read with the objective finding of the medical witness regarding the existence of dead spermatozoa in the vaginal swab of the informant and of recent sexual intercourse with her, the learned court below found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that uncorroborated solitary testimony of P.W. 5, the informant, is unworthy of credit and fit to be discarded in view of the objective finding of P.W. 12, the Investigating Officer regarding the place of occurrence and the medical evidence is also not in conformity with the manner of occurrence as the medical witness did not find any external injury on the person of the informant or any internal injury in her intritous and in case of ravishment forcibly felling on the earth and the sexual intercourse having been resisted, presence of external as well as internal injuries is a natural phenomenon. It has also been submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place at 11.00 hours on 8.6.1996 and the case was instituted on that very day at 18.00 hours but it is queer enough as to why requisition for the medical examination of the informant was issued on 9.6.1996 and the informant was examined by P.W. 4, the medical witness on 10.6.1996 at 12.45 hours. It has also been submitted that the informant was admittedly living in the. company of her husband (P.W. 2) in her father's house immediately prior to the occurrence and also subsequent to the alleged occurrence in the two intervening nights before her medical test and therefore, the presence of dead spermatozoa in her vaginal swab cannot irresistibly lead to the conclusion that it has any co-relation with the appellant in the absence of any conclusive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect thereof. It has also been submitted that there is evidence on the record to show that there are several houses in the vicinity of the alleged place of occurrence and residential house of the appellant is very close to the alleged mill and the informant is said to have raised alarms but none of the persons of vicinity is coming forward to support her version which casts a cloud of suspicion to the texture of the prosecution case and even Radha Sahu, the shopkeeper, who has his shop in front of the said mill, has not come forward to support the prosecution case besides two or three persons said to be present in the said mill when the informant had gone there for milling of her paddy for the reasons best known to the prosecution. There is also no report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the alleged seminal stains on her petticoat to connect the appellant with the alleged incident. It has been contended that there is evidence on the record to show that P.W. 1, the father of the informant has close connection with Dilip Acharya, Randeep Acharya and Rameshwar Acharya, who figured as accused in a case of the murder of the two brothers of the appellant prior to this occurrence and the informant has been set up by them to falsely implicate the appellant in this got up case at their instance due to enmity, existing and alive, between the appellant on the one hand and Dilip Acharya and others on the other hand. It has also been submitted that the evidence of the informant is unreliable and untrustworthy and the same is fit to be discarded in the facts and circumstances of this case. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on the ratio of the cases of Dilip and Another vs. State of M.P. [ (2001) 9 SCC 452 ] and Virnal Suresh Karnble vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and Another [ (2003) 3 SCC 175 ]. Lastly, it has been submitted that in view of the facts, circumstances and evidence on the record taken together, the finding of the learned court below appearing in para-24 of the impugned judgment is perverse based on surmises and conjectures and viewed thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 8. Lastly, it has been submitted that in view of the facts, circumstances and evidence on the record taken together, the finding of the learned court below appearing in para-24 of the impugned judgment is perverse based on surmises and conjectures and viewed thus, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 8. Refuting the contention aforesaid, it has been submitted by the learned A.P.P. that P.W. 5, the informant in her evidence on oath has supported the case of her ravishment by the appellant in the manner as alleged in her F.I.R. and soon after the occurrence she has narrated the incident to her mother (P.W. 3), father (P.W. 1) and husband (P.W. 2) and they, though hearsay witnesses, have corroborated her testimony. It has also been submitted that P.W. 4, the medical witness, has found the presence of dead spermatozoa in the vaginal swab of the informant who had no animus to falsely implicate the appellant in this case and in this view of the matter the finding of the guilt of the appellant arrived at by the learned court below does not suffer with any infirmity. 9. P.W. 5, Behulia Devi, the informant is a major married pregnant woman on the day of the alleged occurrence, living in the company of her husband (P.W. 2) in her parent's house in village-Naurhi, P.S. Arki, District-Ranchi and the duration of her pregnancy was of 28 weeks. There is unimpeachable evidence on the record to establish the fact that the two brothers of the appellant were murdered much prior to the occurrence and Randeep Acharya, Dilip Acharya and Rameshwar Acharya figured as accused in that murder case and there is enmity existing and alive between them on the one hand and this appellant on the other hand for the last twenty years. For this, evidence of P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 10 appearing in para-4 of their respective testimony is referred to. P.W. 6 has also deposed in concluding portion of para-5 of his testimony that P.W. 3 Ropni Devi works in the house of Dilip Acharya aforesaid. P.W. 8 in para-4 has also deposed that P.W. 3 Ropni Devi works in the house of Dilip Acharya and all the members of her family works there. He has also deposed that father of Dilip Acharya is the Mukhiya of the village. P.W. 8 in para-4 has also deposed that P.W. 3 Ropni Devi works in the house of Dilip Acharya and all the members of her family works there. He has also deposed that father of Dilip Acharya is the Mukhiya of the village. P.W. 5 Behulia Devi, the informant has deposed in para-5 of her evidence that the house of her father was constructed under Indira Awas Scheme and the roof of her house starting leaking and D.D.C. has instituted a case against Mukhiya aforesaid and her father (P.W. 1) came to the rescue of the said Mukhiya. P.W. 1 in para-10 of his evidence has deposed that Randeep Acharya aforesaid had accompanied him for his evidence in this case and Rameshwar Acharya, Dilip Acharya and Randeep Acharya are brothers. P.W. 9 has deposed that Dilip Acharya had accompanied the informant and her mother for instituting this case, which he has learnt and he has stated to the I.O. in respect thereof. Similar is the evidence of P.W. 7 in concluding portion of his testimony. P.W. 8 has also deposed that Dilip Acharya had accompanied the informant for getting the case instituted. P.W. 10 has deposed that it is not a fact that he has stated before the I.O. that he came to know that Dilip Acharya had got his case instituted through the informant. P.W. 12, the I.O. in paras 11, 12 and 13 of his evidence has deposed that the witnesses aforesaid had stated before him that the informant and her father and mother are under the influence of Dilip Acharya and the informant has filed this case at the instance of Dilip Acharya. It is relevant to mention here that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has specifically stated that he has been roped in this got up case by the informant at the instance of Dilip Acharya, Randeep Acharya, Rameshwar Acharya and others. In the backdrop of the facts aforesaid, the evidence of P.W. 5, the informant as well as P.W. 3, P.W. 2 and P.W. 1 who are the mother, husband and father respectively of the informant has to be scanned and scrutinized with due care and caution. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 8.6.1996 at 11.00 hours in a room in the premises where rice mill is situated on the verandah. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 8.6.1996 at 11.00 hours in a room in the premises where rice mill is situated on the verandah. The F.I.R. has been recorded on that very day at 18.00 hours. The requisition for the medical examination of P.W. 5, the informant was issued on 9.6.1996. PW. 5, the informant has been examined by P.W. 4, Dr. Umeshwari Kumari on 10.6.1996 at 12.45 hours i.e. third day of the occurrence and she lived in her parent's house with her husband in the two intervening nights. P.W. 5, the informant has deposed in para-16 of her evidence that she had lived with her husband in the night of the occurrence. However, her husband, P.W. 2 has stated that in the intervening nights she had slept separately, thereby contradicting the evidence of the informant in respect thereof. P.W. 4, the medical witness has deposed not to have found any external injury on the person of the informant or any part of her body and there was also no injury on her vulva or intritous. The medical witness has further deposed to have found the presence of dead spermatozoa ill her vaginal swab and came to the. opinion that she had recent sexual intercourse. However, in para-4 of her cross-examination she has deposed in the most clear and unequivocal terms that by recent intercourse she means that the informant has cohabitation within 24.00 hours of her examination. She has also deposed that normally during struggle and resistance while committing rape, injuries must appear on the thigh of the ravished woman and also injuries must be there on her back when a woman is ravished on the rough surface and her clothes will also be soiled, if she is ravished on dirty and filthy surface. Here in this case, the informant is the solitary witness of her alleged ravishment. P.W. 5, the informant has deposed that she returned to the paddy mill with the indigo purchased from the shop of Radha Sahu and by that time, the other persons present in the said mill had gone from there and she delivered the said indigo to the appellant and thereafter the appellant caught her hand and took her inside the room and felled her on the ground and after pulling up her 'Sari' ravished her. She has also deposed that she started crying. In para-? She has also deposed that she started crying. In para-? of her cross-examination she has deposed that she had raised alarms when she was being taken inside the room of the said mill by the appellant catching hold of her hand and at that time the appellant has not stuffed her mouth. It is pertinent to mention here that there are several houses and shops in the close vicinity of the said mill and the house of the Mukhiya is at a distance of hardly 100 yards. The house of appellant in which his family members reside, is adjacent the said mill. Shop of Radha Sahu is also not very far away, rather it is situated in front of the said mill. Surprisingly enough, no person of the vicinity had responded to her hue and cry to rescue her. For this, evidence of P.W. 12, the I.O. in para-2, P.W. 5 in para-6 and P.W. 3 in para-4 is referred to. P.W. 5 has further deposed that after felling her on the ground the appellant torn her blouse and in course of ravishment she was protesting, resisting and raising alarms. She has also deposed that she had sustained injuries on her elbow, leg and breast besides bleeding injury inside her intritous. She has also deposed that she had shown her injuries aforesaid to the medical witness and has also handed over the torn blouse to the I.O. Her evidence is further to the effect that she has also handed over her white petticoat having seminal stains thereon to the I.O. P.W. 3 Ropni Devi, the mother of the informant has deposed that she was informed by her daughter, the informant regarding the incident when she came to her house. She has also deposed to have seen the existence of injuries on her elbow and she has also found her clothes torn. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, however, do not whisper regarding the existence of any external injury on the person of the informant in. their evidence on oath. It is pertinent to mention here that when a grown up woman, married or unmarried offers resistance in course of ravishment, marks of violence such as bruises, scratches of finger nails etc. may be found on her external genitals perineum, abdomen, chest, back, limbs, neck and face besides love bite marks found on her chick, neck, thigh etc. It is pertinent to mention here that when a grown up woman, married or unmarried offers resistance in course of ravishment, marks of violence such as bruises, scratches of finger nails etc. may be found on her external genitals perineum, abdomen, chest, back, limbs, neck and face besides love bite marks found on her chick, neck, thigh etc. due to sucking pressure and teeth imprint. Furthermore, according to the prosecution case read with the evidence of P.W. 5, the informant, she has been forcibly felled on the ground where she was ravished. In such a situation, there ought to be existence of injuries on her back, waist, hip and buttock. The medical witness has categorically deposed in most clear and unequivocal terms that there was neither any external injury on her person nor any internal injury in her private parts. Therefore, the evidence of the medical witness is inconsistent and not in conformity with the prosecution case of the ravishment of the informant in the manner as alleged and it also materially contradicts the testimony of the informant regarding the existence of injuries on her person as deposed by her. The finding of the medical witness regarding the presence of dead sperm in her vaginal swab does not necessarily confirm or establish the fact that the informant has been ravished by the appellant in view of the fact that in the two intervening nights prior to her examination by the medical witness she has lived in the company of her husband and it is a circumstance of unimpeachable character to cast a cloud of suspicion in respect thereof. Furthermore, no attempt has been by the prosecution to get the said dead sperm chemically examined by Forensic Science Laboratory with the sperms of the appellant in course of investigation. There is also no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the alleged seminal stains on the petticoat of the informant which has been handed over to the I.O. and seized as per Ext. 2 to connect the said seminal stains with the dead sperm found by the medical witness. Therefore, there is no legal evidence on the record to establish the fact that dead sperm found in the vaginal swab of the informant has its co-relation with the appellant. There may be an element of truth in the prosecution. 2 to connect the said seminal stains with the dead sperm found by the medical witness. Therefore, there is no legal evidence on the record to establish the fact that dead sperm found in the vaginal swab of the informant has its co-relation with the appellant. There may be an element of truth in the prosecution. case as alleged but considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true on this score but between may be true and must be true there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before the appellant is held guilty. A single circumstance in isolation can have no legal effect. P.W. 12, the I.O. has deposed to have inspected the place of occurrence. He has deposed that there is a 10' x 15' verandah adjacent to village road and there are paddy mill and flour mill installed on the verandah and there is a room adjacent that verandah which is of the size of 15' x 12' in which different old parts of those machines were found kept and the said room was filled up with those articles. He has further deposed that nothing was found scattered in the said room in course of his investigation and the floor of the said room was full of dust and filth and it appears that the said room was not opened since long. He has also deposed that he did not find any sign on the floor covered with dust of any incident having taken place therein. He has also deposed not to have found any broken bangles therein. In para-6 of his cross-examination he has deposed that he did not find any disturbance in the dust fallen on the ground as well as any sign of any person having been felled there or of laying there. The objective finding of the I.O., therefore, puts a question mark on the prosecution case of the ravishment of the informant in the said room as alleged. The I.O. has inspected the place of occurrence within 24.00 hours of the occurrence. The objective finding of the I.O., therefore, puts a question mark on the prosecution case of the ravishment of the informant in the said room as alleged. The I.O. has inspected the place of occurrence within 24.00 hours of the occurrence. The learned court below discarded the evidence of the I.O. regarding his objective finding of the place of occurrence and has observed that "in his opinion the lapse of 24.00 hours was enough to fill up the mark of laying the victim lady on the floor with fresh dust and so far the absence of broken bangles is concerned, when a victim cannot resist out of fear, her bangles are not supposed to have broken bangles". This finding of the learned court below is totally unacceptable in view of tile evidence on the record for which there is no rationale as per the evidence of tile prosecution and it appears to be perverse. 10. P.W. 5, the informant has deposed that after the occurrence she returned to her parent's house weeping from there but nobody in the way inquired from her as to why she is weeping. P.W. 3 Ropni Devi, the mother of the informant has deposed that she was sowing paddy in the field where she was informed that P.W 5 is weeping in the house and she came there where she was narrated about the incident by the informant. She has further deposed that thereafter she informed about the incident to her husband (P.W 2) and thereafter her husband informed the co-villagers in respect thereof. She has also deposed that she called her husband from the place where he was working and her husband came at about 4 o'clock in the day. She has also deposed that she has sent some children to call her husband. P.W 1 has deposed that his wife P.W 3 came to the place where he was working and informed him that P.W 5 is weeping in her house and at this he proceeded with her to the house. In para-4 of his cross-examination he has deposed that his wife did not inform regarding the incident in the way while coming to his house. He has further deposed that when he reached his house he was informed regarding the incident in question and he took 15 minutes only for coming to his house from the place where he was working. He has further deposed that when he reached his house he was informed regarding the incident in question and he took 15 minutes only for coming to his house from the place where he was working. He has also deposed that thereafter he informed about the occurrence to his co-villagers. P.W 2 has deposed to have learnt regarding the occurrence from his wife P.W 5. He has deposed that his wife told him that when she had gone with the paddy for milling in the mill of the appellant she was sent by the appellant to purchase indigo and when she returned after making purchase of the indigo and enquired as to where her rice is and at this the appellant told that it has been kept inside the room and asked her to take the said rice from the said room and when she went inside the said room the appellant caught her hand there, felled on the ground and ravished her. P.W 3 gives a different account regarding the manner of the occurrence. P.Ws. 6, 7, 8 and 10 nave deposed that the informant in the company of her mother had come to their house at 12.30 hours on the day of the occurrence and informed them that when the informant had gone to the mill of the appellant with paddy for milling and at that time the appellant had caught her hand when she did not make the payment of the charges of the milling of the said paddy. They in their evidence do not state regarding the ravishment of the informant as averred in the F.I.R. lodged by the informant. Therefore, P.Ws. 6, 7, 8 and 10 do not at all corroborate the version of the prosecution regarding the occurrence as hearsay witnesses. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are also hearsay witnesses on this score. The ravishment of the informant has not taken place on the sly. Admittedly, there are several houses and shops in the close vicinity of the said rice mill. The informant has deposed to have raised alarms. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the broad day but none of the persons of the vicinity is coming to support the prosecution case. The solitary evidence of P.W. 5, the informant stands uncorroborated by any other evidence on the record of any independent, natural and competent witness. The informant has deposed to have raised alarms. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the broad day but none of the persons of the vicinity is coming to support the prosecution case. The solitary evidence of P.W. 5, the informant stands uncorroborated by any other evidence on the record of any independent, natural and competent witness. The evidence of the I.O. and of the medical witness are not at all in conformity with the manner of occurrence as deposed by the informant and as averred in her F.I.R. It has been observed in the case of Dilip and Another (supra) that it is well settled that the prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made the basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of the corroboration should be present to the mind of the judge and tl1is case rests solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence given in the case does not lend any positive corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix and therefore in view of the aforesaid contradictions it is difficult to accept the truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix of the sexual assault. In the case of Virnal Suresh Karnble (supra) it has been observed that it is true that the conviction of an accused on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is permissible, but that is in a case where the evidence of the prosecutirx inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this case is not of such quality, and there is no other evidence on record which may even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that she is making a truthful statement. The ratio of both the cases aforesaid has its application in the facts and circumstances of this case. The mere presence of the dead spermatozoa in the vaginal swab of the informant as opined by the medical witness does not ipso facto reach to the conclusion that the informant has been ravished by the appellant as alleged in view of the evidence on the record that for the two intervening nights prior to her medical test, the informant had lived in the company of her husband. The false implication of the appellants by the informant at the instance of Dilip Acharya, Randeep Acharya and Rameshwar Acharya cannot be totally ruled out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the defence version in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be natural and probable. I see no ring of truth in the solitary uncorroborated testimony of P.W. 5, the informant. The learned court below did not consider, scan and scrutinize the evidence on the record meticulously and in proper perspective and has committed a manifest error in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 11. There is merit in this appeal and it succeeds. The appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned court below is set aside. The appellant is found not guilty and he is, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liability of this bail bond.