BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an appeal preferred by the six convicts against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Burdwan in Sessions Case no. 222/83 (ST. 4/84) on 09. 03. 1984. ( 2 ) SHORTLY put, the prosecution case is that on 12. 09. 1980 at about 10. 00 p. m. on way back from herpaternal house at Chandrapur within district birbhum, the defecto-complainant alighted from the train at Bhedia Station to go to her matrimonial house at Joykrishnapur. As the accused persons who hail from her village asked herto accompany them as they were going to that village, she on good faith started with them. After proceeding for about half an hour, when they reached at Gabar Math, accused Akbar gave her an ill proposal, and on her refusal the accused persons assaulted her with fist and blows resulting in her bodily pain. Accused Akbar then forceably committed rape upon her by the side of the road followed by rape by other accused persons viz. Anisur @ Mantu, Bhelu Sk. , Majai Mondal, Jalal Mondal and Gadu Sk. one by one. Akbar gagged a piece of cloth on her mouth and he as also accused Anisur threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses the incident to any other persons. They took out her cloth and caused her to wear a napkin. As she was not in a position to move, the said accused persons carried her on their shoulder and left her on the eastern side of her house. She narrated the incident to her husband, neighbours dhiren Middya, Murari Middya and Pradhan of Barenda Gram Panchayat. Hence, all the accused persons were charged under Section 376 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence case, as suggested to P. Ws. 1, 2, and 5 is that no such incident took place. On the relevant night no train plied between Sainthia and bhedia. There was no assault on the defacto-complainant Annabala nor she was left at the house with a napkin as her wearing apparel. The present case is the outcome of political rivalry. 1, 2, and 5 is that no such incident took place. On the relevant night no train plied between Sainthia and bhedia. There was no assault on the defacto-complainant Annabala nor she was left at the house with a napkin as her wearing apparel. The present case is the outcome of political rivalry. ( 4 ) SIX witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, while none was examined on behalf of the defence, and after considering the facts, circumstances and materials-on-record, the learned Court below found all the six accused persons guilty under Section 376 I. P. C. , convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to suffer R. I. for 8 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 5007- each i/d to R. I. forthree months each. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order of conviction and sentence, all the six convicts have preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the above order of conviction and sentence. ( 7 ) P. W. 1, then aged about 35/36 years-mother of two sons and two daughters, simply deposed regarding assault on her by the accused persons on her way back from paternal house at Chandrapur within district Birbhum to matrimonial house at Joykrishnapur, at about 11. 30/12. 00 at night while after alighting from train at Bhedia Station she accompanied them on their assurance of safe escort to her house, for which she was declared hostile by the prosecution, and in cross-examination she ultimately narrated the incident of sexual assault by the accused persons on the lines as depicted in the f. I. R. contending that due to loss of memory she could not describe the whole truth earlier. It is her evidence that when she left the station she had a sari but when the accused persons left her to her house she had a napkin as her wearing apparel. Now, on principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with the evidence of an injured witness as she is the best witness and is not likely to exculpate the real offender. The evidence in all such cases is that of the victim herself. Substantial corroboration of prosecutrix's version cannot be insisted upon in all cases. Now, on principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with the evidence of an injured witness as she is the best witness and is not likely to exculpate the real offender. The evidence in all such cases is that of the victim herself. Substantial corroboration of prosecutrix's version cannot be insisted upon in all cases. The Court must bear in mind human psychology and behavioural probability when assessing the testimonial potency of the victim's version. The inherent bashfulness, the innocent naivete and feminine tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggrasion are factors which are relevant to improbalise the hypothesis of false implication. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances (1980 Cr. LJ 926 (SC ). In this connection, the observation of the Apex Court in States of Punjab v. Gurmit singh ( 1996 (2) SCC 384 ), referred to in 2002 SCC (Cr.) 592 may well be referred to : "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. . . . . . ". So, where rape is denied by the accused the sort of corroboration one looks for is medical evidence showing injury to the private parts of the victim, injury to other parts of the body which may have been occassioned in a struggle, seminal stains on her cloth or the cloths of the accused or on the places where the offence is alleged to have been committed and in all cases importance is attached to the subsequent conduct of the victim. Whether she makes a charge promptly or not is always relevant. In the present case, the medical evidence appears to support the prosecution story since Medical officer (P. W. 4) on examination of P. W. 1 on 13,09. Whether she makes a charge promptly or not is always relevant. In the present case, the medical evidence appears to support the prosecution story since Medical officer (P. W. 4) on examination of P. W. 1 on 13,09. 1980 found (1) abrasions over her chest (back side), on the inferior angle of the right scapula and (2)slight bleading- P/v noted by P/v Examination, and on query the patient reported that she was in period. The history of the injuries, as reported by the patient, is that she was assaulted with blow, threatened-sexual intercourse was done by Akbar, Mantu, Bhelu, Gadai, Jalal and Majai at about 10. 30 p. m. on 12. 09. 80 at Gabarmath at Joykrishnapur village. The said injury on inferior angle, he opined, could have been caused by a scuffling over the rough surface of ground. But there are certain other evidence which entirely demolishes the prosecution case. It is the evidence of P. W.-1 in her cross-examination that on being tutored by local comrades she made statement before the doctor, police and Trial Court. So, the story made out in her examination-in-chief as also the said history of injury stated by p. W.-4 lose all its significance. Again, she deposed that she filed an application before the trial Court that the proceeding emanated from the ill-feeling between them was compromised at the instance of local comrades and she make no false averment in that petition which being quite contradictory to her evidence in Examination-in-Chief belies the entire prosecution case. She (P. W.-1) claims to have narrated the incident to her husband and one ' Abdullah, a local comrade which does not appear to be in conformity with the prosecution story, according to which the matter was reported by her to her husband (P. W. 5), Dhiren Middya, Murari Middya and Badra Alam-Pradhan of local Gram Panchayat. None of the said Dhiren and Murari has been examined here. Her Husband (P. W. 5) who was declared hostile by the prosecution, simply deposed regarding assault on her by the accused persons, as reported to him by P. W. 1, and there is no whisper of rape committed upon her by the accused persons. None of the said Dhiren and Murari has been examined here. Her Husband (P. W. 5) who was declared hostile by the prosecution, simply deposed regarding assault on her by the accused persons, as reported to him by P. W. 1, and there is no whisper of rape committed upon her by the accused persons. The evidence of said Badra Alam (P. W. 2) is that on hearing praneswar (wrongly described) and his wife (P. W. 1) who made a complaint before him that rape was committed upon Praneswar's wife, he advised them to go to thep. S. Who committed rape and when has not been disclosed. However, there being no such earlier statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. on his part, as is evinced from the evidence of I. O. (P. W. 6), the said evidence may be excluded from consideration. Last but not the list, the evidence of p. W. 6 (I. O.) who had been to Bhedia Railway Station and examined the a. S. M. , reveals that no train arrived at Bhedia Railway Station at the relevant period of time on that night which virtually falsifies the entire prosecution stroy. ( 8 ) IN the premises, in the light of the above discussion, the prosecution having failed to prove the case at all, the accused persons cannot be held guilty. ( 9 ) AS such, the appeal be allowed on contest. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused persons by the learned court below on 9. 3. 1984 in Sessions Case No. 222/1983 (S. T. 4/1984) be set aside. All the six accused persons stand acquitted of the charge under section 376 I. P. C and they be set at liberty at once. The above accused persons be discharged from bail bond. ( 10 ) ALAMATS, if any, be destroyed after the period of appeal is over. Let a copy of this judgment along with the L. C. R. be sent down at once to the learned Court below. Chowdhury, J. : I agree.