K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) IN this statutory appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure the sole accused in Sessions Case no. 211 of 1997 on the file of the Sessions judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada is the appellant. He assails the validity of the judgment passed by the Court below in convicting him under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,0007- in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. ( 2 ) IT is apposite to narrate a few facts that are necessary for the purpose of deciding this appeal which are as under: ( 3 ) THE victim Patchigalla Nagarani aged about 15 years by the date of the incident was alone present in the house as her parents went to the house of P. W. 6 on 28-6-1997 at about 8 p. m. It is at that time the accused came there, gagged her mouth and took her to a heap of manure and committed rape on her. She lost consciousness. Later P. W. 4 came there and saw the accused running away and then he sprinkled water on P. W. I and when he enquired her, she informed him that the accused came there and committed rape on her in the manure of heap. Thereupon P. Ws. 2 and 3 returned from the house of P. W. 6, came to know about the incident through their daughter and then they went to the police Station and lodged Ex. P. l report with the police. P. W. 10 registered the case and informed about the same to P. W. 12 who took up investigation, examined the P. W. 1 and sent her to the Medical Officer for examination. He visited the scene of offence, prepared observation report in the presence of mediators and also prepared a rough sketch. He seized certain material objects on the same day. He arrested the accused and sent him to the Court for judicial custody. After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation P. W. 12 filed a charge-sheet. ( 4 ) A charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused for which he denied. On behalf of the prosecution twelve witnesses were examined as P. Ws. He arrested the accused and sent him to the Court for judicial custody. After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation P. W. 12 filed a charge-sheet. ( 4 ) A charge under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused for which he denied. On behalf of the prosecution twelve witnesses were examined as P. Ws. l 590 to 12 and Exs. P. l to P. 10 and M. Os. l to 4 were got marked. The lower Court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case for the offence under Section 376 ipc and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused. It is as against the said conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that except the interested testimony of P. W. I, there is no other evidence to corroborate her evidence and that the medical evidence completely ruled out the possibility of rape being committed on P. W. 1 and there was no possibility for P. W. I to identify the assailant as the offence is alleged to have taken place in darkness and therefore he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence. ( 6 ) ON the other hand the learned additional Public Prosecutor contended that there is no reason for P. W. I to implicate the accused falsely and that the evidence of p. W. I would clearly go to show that the accused committed rape on her and that the evidence of P. W. 4 would go to show that the accused was running away from the scene of offence and the lower Court after considering the evidence on record came to the right conclusion in convicting the appellant. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal. ( 7 ) THE ingredients of the offence under Section 376 IPC are firstly that the fact of sexual intercourse by a man with a woman and secondly that such woman having been subjected to intercourse under any of the five circumstances mentioned in Section 375 IPC. Explanation to section 375 IPC reads that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. ( 8 ) AS regards the proof of offence of rape, it is seldom that direct evidence is available beyond the evidence of the raped woman. Explanation to section 375 IPC reads that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. ( 8 ) AS regards the proof of offence of rape, it is seldom that direct evidence is available beyond the evidence of the raped woman. It is an essential part of the proof of rape that there should have been not only an assault but the actual penetration. In practice, a conviction for rape almost entirely depends on the credibility of the woman so far as essential ingredients are concerned, the other evidence being merely corroborated. Her testimony is vital in a case where a girl is unmarried, and the corroboration of medical evidence for the charge of rape. The rule, which according the cases hardened into one of law is that corroboration is essential before there can be conviction but the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Court, before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. ( 9 ) P. W. I is the sole witness for the alleged rape. She was aged about 15 years at the time of the incident. On 28-6-1997 at about 8 p. m. , while P. W. I was alone present at the house the accused came there, gagged her mouth and took her to a manure heap and there he committed rape on her and she lost consciousness. Except an omnibus allegation that the accused committed rape on her, she did not give any details. It is at that time P. W. 4 happened to go to the house of P. W. I, and he saw the accused scampering from the scene of offence. Then P. W. 4 sprinkled water on the face of P. W. 1 and when he enquired p. W. I she narrated about the incident. At the same time P. Ws. 2 and 3 returned from the house of P. W. 6 and P. W. 1 also informed her parents about the incident. The defence of the accused is that he was falsely implicated by P. W. 6 as the paternal uncle of the accused deposed against the relatives of P. W. 6 in a double murder case. 2 and 3 returned from the house of P. W. 6 and P. W. 1 also informed her parents about the incident. The defence of the accused is that he was falsely implicated by P. W. 6 as the paternal uncle of the accused deposed against the relatives of P. W. 6 in a double murder case. 591 ( 10 ) SINCE the offence took place at about 8 p. m. , the identity of the person who committed rape on P. W. I assumes significance. P. W. 1 has no personal acquaintance with the accused except as a co-villager. P. W. 1 did not state as to how she could be in a position to identify the accused who according to her came behind and cuddled her and took her to the nearby place. It is P. W. 4 who stated that the lights in her house were burning when he went to the house. In the cross-examination also he testified that there were lights in front of the house. P. W. 7 specifically stated that there were no lights in the house of P. W. 3. He is one of the mediators to the observation report when P. W. 12 conducted the scene of observation report. P. Ws. 7 and 8 admitted that there was no mention in Ex. P. 3 regarding the presence of street lights or electrical lights in the house of P. W. 1. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the best witness to speak about the existence of lights or the existence of street lights near their house. Their evidence is totally silent. Therefore, P. W. 4 appears to be a planted witness to support the case of the prosecution or at any rate he is projected as a witness to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 1. Therefore, it may be difficult for the witness to identify the accused in darkness. When a crime was committed in the night time during darkness and the assailant is a stranger to the witness the identification of the accused person assumes great importance. The prevailing of light is a matter of crucial significance. There is no whisper in the first information report or in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 that there was some source of light at the scene of offence. The prevailing of light is a matter of crucial significance. There is no whisper in the first information report or in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 that there was some source of light at the scene of offence. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is not desirable to place an implicit reliance on the evidence of P. W. 1 with regard to the identity of the accused. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the actual incident, p. W. I did not receive any injuries when the accused dragged her to the nearby manure heap. She did not sustain any injuries on her legs nor she sustained any injuries on her body when the incident took place for about an hour. Her evidence is quite contradictory to the evidence of P. W. 3 who found scratch marks on the face of P. W. 1. The doctor who examined P. W. 1 also did not find any injuries. The scene of offence where the incident took place is surrounded by residential houses. P. W. 2 admitted that some residential houses are surrounding his house and several family members were residing in those houses. If really the incident of this nature had taken place at least P. W. 1 would have raised cries though not at the time of incident, but immediately after the incident as her mouth was closed at the time of incident. The attention of the neighbours would have been drawn had she cried. According to p. W. 4, no person gathered at the time of incident. P. W. 2 after returning from the house of P. W. 6 when enquired with her neighbours about the incident they stated that they did not know about the incident. So, in those circumstances, the evidence of p. W. I has to be viewed with suspicion. Therefore, her evidence requires to be corroborated by medical evidence. ( 12 ) P. W. 8 is the Doctor who examined p. W. I and opined that she was aged about 16 years by the date of her examination and issued Ex. P. 4 age certificate. P. W. 2 stated that her daughter was aged about 13 years. P. W. I appears to be a minor at the time of incident. The fact that she was a minor is not controverted nor disputed. The evidence of P. W. 8 and the recitals in Ex. P. 4 age certificate. P. W. 2 stated that her daughter was aged about 13 years. P. W. I appears to be a minor at the time of incident. The fact that she was a minor is not controverted nor disputed. The evidence of P. W. 8 and the recitals in Ex. P. 4 remain unchallenged. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 is the Doctor who examined p. W. I on 26-6-1997 at about 10-30 a. m. , ex. P. 7 is the final opinion. Fx. P. 5 is the wound certificate. Though it is stated that she examined the victim on 26-6-1997 and also it is noted in the wound certificate 592 that she examined P. W. 1 on 26-6-1997, it must have been a mistake on the part of p. W. 9 in not mentioning the correct date in Ex. P. 5 and also while testifying in the Court and on that ground it cannot be said that Ex. P. 5 is fabricated. On examination by P. W. 9 she did not find any external injuries. On internal examination she found external genetalia healthy. No fresh tears or injuries in internal genetalia were found. Hymen was full of white discharge with no tear which means it was intact and she opined that no force was used against p. W. I and she did not find any happening of sexual intercourse. She also stated that in case of first sexual intercourse by using force there will be presence of injuries. Therefore, the medical evidence completely ruled out the possibility of rape being committed on P. W. 1 because the hymen was intact. The accused was also examined by P. W. ll who stated that the accused was capable of performing sexual act. According to P. W. 1, the accused committed copulation for about one hour and 20, the hymen would not be intact and necessarily further some injuries must have been received by P. W. 1 in the course of struggle. So also no sperm or spermatozoa was found on the skin of P. W. 1 or on the lungi of the accused. ( 14 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of P. Ws. l to 6 is consistent, corroborating with each other and is free from any contradictions or omissions regarding the material particulars of the case. So also no sperm or spermatozoa was found on the skin of P. W. 1 or on the lungi of the accused. ( 14 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of P. Ws. l to 6 is consistent, corroborating with each other and is free from any contradictions or omissions regarding the material particulars of the case. But the learned Sessions Judge did not consider as to how P. W. I or P. W. 4 could be in a position to identify the accused in the darkness. The learned Judge observed that P. W. 9 did not state whether the hymen was intact or not. But that is absolutely not correct because P. W. 9 specifically stated that hymen was not torn which means it was intact. Further, the same was also specifically mentioned in Ex. P. 6 report. On this aspect the learned Counsel appearing for the accused in the Court below relied on the decision reported in 1997 crl. L. J. 1724 (Vishnu v. State of maharashtra) to the effect that in the absence of actual evidence of penetration in the oral testimony of prosecutrix it is not safe to come to the conclusion regarding the happening of an offence of rape especially if the medical certificate showed that hymen of the girl was intact. In this case also the hymen was intact but unfortunately the learned Judge observed that P. W. 9 did not mention whether the hymen was in fact intact or not. If really the rape was committed on her definitely the hymen would have been torn. Therefore, the lower Court has not appreciated the evidence in a right perspective. Hence it is a fit case to interfere with the order of conviction. ( 15 ) IN the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 376 IPC are set aside and the appellant accused is acquitted of the said offence and shall be forthwith released if not required in any other case and the fine amount shall be refunded to him. Appeal is thus allowed.