JUDGMENT 1. Appellant stands convicted under S. 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. 2. Prosecutrix is the second wife of Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4), who is one of the sons of the appellant. As per prosecutrix, on 27.5.1998 at about 11.00 a.m., she was dripping water from her kasediya on her roof, appellant caught her petticoat from behind whereby she fell down on her back. Her clothes were displaced. Appellant pressed her mouth and ascended on her. He bit her right cheek and penetrated his wale organ twice or thrice. In defence, she pressed the neck of the appellant and called her five year old son Ajay. Usha (DW 3), the neighbour, had also come. She complained to her husband Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4) when he returned from Dabra and lodged FIR (Ex. P-l) the same day at 7.50 p.m. at PS Bhitarwar situate at a distance of 8 kms. Her husband Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4) has supported her. Dr. Neena (PW 2) had medically examined the prosecutrix and noted an abrasion on left cheek .5 cm. x .5 cm. and another abrasion on left arm posteriorly .5 cm. x .5 cm. However, no injury on her back or private parts was noted, the prosecutrix being a married woman and habitual of sexual intercourse. Male Doctor Ramprasad Saral (PW 3) had medically examined the appellant and had not noted any external injury or nail marks or abrasion on any part of the body suggestive of struggle with the prosecutrix. However, he found nothing whereby he could say that the appellant was incapable of sexual intercourse. 3. Appellant has pleaded not guilty. He has claimed that he has been falsely implicated by his own daughter-in-law and son because of dispute as to payment of some amount. Parwatibai (DW 1) has deposed that Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4) had come to her and threatened her that either she should ask the appellant to give Rs.20,000/- to him otherwise he would get him falsely implicated for rape. According to her, appellant is a Pujari, has no interest in worldly affairs and generally visits the temples, sleeps there and worships there. Rambai (DW 2), the wife of appellant, has deposed that appellant did not indulge in sexual intercourse for about last twenty years with her even. According to her, appellant is a Pujari, has no interest in worldly affairs and generally visits the temples, sleeps there and worships there. Rambai (DW 2), the wife of appellant, has deposed that appellant did not indulge in sexual intercourse for about last twenty years with her even. According to her, lady sangeet was going on the roof where everybody was there, having no privacy necessary for the offence alleged. She has deposed that Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4) and his wife, the prosecutrix, have demanded money from the appellant, who had refused to pay immediately. Thereupon false case of rape was framed by the prosecutrix. Usha (DW 3) has supported her and claimed that the appellant had not molested his own daughter-in-law. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that the appellant happens to be an old and infirm person of 66 years of age and it is neither natural nor probable for him, actually it is beyond his physical capacity to commit forcible rape on his own daughter-in-law who is young and energetic woman of 26. According to him, case of prosecutrix is not supported by medical evidence. According to him, the marks of injuries caused in struggle and fall from her roof to the roof of the appellant which was about 4 feet downwards were conspicuous for their absence and belie the prosecution version. The Advocate has argued that normally a father-in-law cannot sexually assault his own daughter-in-law who is equal to his own daughter. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has argued that no daughter-in-law or son would falsely implicate his father-in-law or his father for such an offence. In all these facts, very close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence is necessary before the conviction of the appellant is confirmed. 5. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. N.K. [ (2000) 5 SCC 30 ], after examining almost whole of the law on the subject, has observed as follows: "10. The questions arising for consideration before us are: whether the prosecution story as alleged, inspires confidence of the Court on the evidence adduced? Whether the prosecutrix is a witness worthy of reliance? Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix who has been a victim of rape stands in need of corroboration and, if so, whether such corroboration is available in the facts of the present case? What was the age of the prosecutrix? Whether the prosecutrix is a witness worthy of reliance? Whether the testimony of a prosecutrix who has been a victim of rape stands in need of corroboration and, if so, whether such corroboration is available in the facts of the present case? What was the age of the prosecutrix? Whether she was a consenting party to the crime? Whether there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR? 11. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge. However, if the Court of facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do. Reference may be had to a long chain of decisions some of which are Rameshwar [Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 ], Sidheswar Ganguly [Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of W.B. AIR 1958 SC 143 ], Madho Ram [Madho Ram v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 533 ], [State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 ], Madan Gopal Kakkad [Madan Goped Kakkadv. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 ] Narayan [State of Rajasthan v. Narayan, (1992) 3 SCC 615 ], Karnel Singh [Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 ], Bodhisattwa Gautam [Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490 ]. We may quote from the last of the abovesaid decisions where the rule for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases has been succinctly summed up in the following words: "If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. We may quote from the last of the abovesaid decisions where the rule for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases has been succinctly summed up in the following words: "If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." 6. On careful and circumspect appreciation of evidence of prosecutrix and her husband, certainly weight of probability has been against the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix is a married woman. Appellant happens to be her father-in-law. However, he had not attended the marriage of the prosecutrix with his son Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4) who had deserted his previous wife who was alive and had married the prosecutrix. Thus, relations had not been cordial. Admittedly, the appellant is an old man, a senior citizen above 65 years of age. He has lost interest in the house. He generally visits and resides in temples outside the town during nights. Even his wife Rambai (DW 2) has claimed that the appellant lid not indulge in sexual intercourse with his own wife for last 20 years. The appellant and the prosecutrix, though reside in the same house but live separately. Their mess is separate. Appellant resides with his younger son Hariom. Certainly, relations of the prosecutrix and her husband Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4) are far from being cordial with the appellant or his younger son Hariom. Property dispute has certainly been there between them. Though the prosecutrix had claimed that she was pulled down from her roof 4 ft. above the roof of the appellant and had fallen down on her back, but no corresponding injury which could be caused by such a great fall has been observed by Dr. Neena (PW 2) on person of the prosecutrix. Abrasion on left cheek and left hand were not such which could be caused in such a fall. Certainly, the prosecutrix is young woman of about 26 years of age. Neena (PW 2) on person of the prosecutrix. Abrasion on left cheek and left hand were not such which could be caused in such a fall. Certainly, the prosecutrix is young woman of about 26 years of age. She had claimed that she had struggled, yet no mark of external injury is found on person of the appellant which could be caused in such struggle, as is clear from statement of Ram Prasad Saral (PW 3), the male doctor, who examined the appellant. Certainly, the son of prosecutrix, Ajay, who was allegedly called by her, has not been examined. Usha (DW 3), who was admittedly called by the prosecutrix for her help, has straight away denied the version of the prosecutrix. 7. The place of occurrence is said to be the open roof of the appellant which was visible from all the sides. No privacy necessary for perpetration of such an offence was available. Certainly, the appellant could have better opportunities to sexually assault his own daughter-in-law if he so minded. Time of offence has been 11 a.m., i.e., noon time which was also not opportunate. Though, the prosecutrix has claimed that her bangles were broken yet no broken bangles have been seized by the police. Prosecutrix has in para 11 claimed that her mother-in-law had gone to Vrindavan with her brother-in-law. Thus, the claim that the broken bangles were swept away by the mother-in-law has not beer correct. The story of the prosecutrix in para 14 that she had struggled hard against the onslaught of the appellant seems to be imaginary in view of the absence of corresponding injuries on person of the appellant and the prosecutrix herself. On the whole, the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence in it. Her husband Damodar Prasad Mishra (PW 4) seems to be wholly under the influence of his wife and has beaten her drum on her directions. Thus, conviction of the appellant is not well founded. Appeal merits to be allowed. 8. Hence, appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellant under S. 376 of the Code is set aside. His sentence is also set aside. His personal bonds and surety bonds are cancelled.