JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The appellant impugns the order of the Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore in Sessions Case No. 398 of 1993 convicting him under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. On the basis of an FIR lodged on 4.9.1993 by Dasamu Bhatra (P.W.4) alleging that on the said day at 1.00 p.m. while his wife Sanmati Bhatrani (P.W.1) was collecting firewood in a nearby jungle, known as ‘Dobari Jungle’, the appellant who was collecting cowdung in the said jungle told her that a big piece of wood was lying nearby in the jungle. P.W.1 however refused to go there. It was alleged that thereafter the appellant forcibly pulled her down on the ground and in spite of her resistance committed rape on her inside that jungle by raising the saree of P.W.1 and also removing the pad which P.W.1 was using as she was having her monthly menstruation. While the appellant was commit¬ting the crime, P.W.2 Lachhminath Bhatra arrived at the spot, seeing whom the appellant left P.W.1 and fled away. Due to rape on her P.W.1 had profuse bleeding. She reported the matter to her husband P.W.4 who lodged the report before police at 6.00 p.m. the very day. On the basis of such report, G.R. Case No. 383 of 1993 was registered. After investigation, prosecution submitted charge sheet against the appellant who faced the trial. The plea of the appellant was complete denial. He further stated that a day prior to the alleged occurrence, he had dispute with informant (P.W.4) and his wife the alleged victim (P.W.1) regarding landed property which had culminated in a quarrel and in order to harass the appellant the case had been falsely foist¬ed against him. 3. To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited eleven documents. Defence examined two witnesses and did not exhibit any document in support of its plea. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was Sanmati Bhatrani, the alleged victim. She corroborated the FIR story. P.W.2 was Lachhminath Bhatra who was stated to have seen the alleged occurrence. Defence examined two witnesses and did not exhibit any document in support of its plea. Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was Sanmati Bhatrani, the alleged victim. She corroborated the FIR story. P.W.2 was Lachhminath Bhatra who was stated to have seen the alleged occurrence. P.W. 3 was Lachhma Bhatrani, a resident of the village and near the spot of occurrence before whom P.W. 1 was stated to have narrated the incident soon therea¬fter. P.W. 4 was Dasamu Bhatra - P.W. 1’s husband - before whom P.W.1 stated to have narrated the alleged incident whereafter he had reported the matter to police. P.W. 5 was Damuru Pujari before whom also P.W.1 had narrated the alleged incident. P.W.6 was the Lady Assistant Surgeon who had examined the alleged victim on police requisition. P.W.7 was S. Venkataswamy, the A.S.I. of Police of Kosagumuda Outpost before whom P.W.4 had lodged the FIR and was one of the investigating officers. P.W.8 was the O.I.C. of Kodinga P.S., the other investigating officer who had submitted charge sheet in the case. Out of the defence witnesses, D.W. 1 was Laikhana Bhatra who deposed about the dispute between the appellant and P.W.4 over excavation of a drain on the land of the appellant and the quarrel ensuing therea¬fter. D.W.2 was Hari Mirgan who deposed about the land dispute which was reported to him by the appellant. 4. Learned trial Court after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, disbelieved the defence plea and relying mainly upon the statement of the alleged victim (P.W.1) which was corroborated by P.W.2 and other witnesses convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully submitted that the Court below has not properly appreciated the defence plea that the informant P.W.4 and his wife, the alleged victim, P.W.1 were inimically disposed towards the appellant. It was further urged that the medical evidence completely gave a go-by to the prosecution case of P.W.1 having been subjected to rape. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant forcefully submitted that the Court below has not properly appreciated the defence plea that the informant P.W.4 and his wife, the alleged victim, P.W.1 were inimically disposed towards the appellant. It was further urged that the medical evidence completely gave a go-by to the prosecution case of P.W.1 having been subjected to rape. In view of the evidence of the Lady Doctor coupled with the chemical examination report Ext.11 indicating that no semen stains were detected either on the wearing apparels of P.W.1 or that of the appellant, the irresistible conclusion would have that due to prior property dispute among the appellant and the informant, the case had been falsely foisted against the appel¬lant, although in fact there was no incident as alleged. Alterna¬tively he argued that the fact as alleged by the prosecution might have happened with consent, inasmuch as the same having been witnessed by P.W.2, out of shame and in order to show her innocence P.W.1 might have thrown the blame on the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the State, at the other hand, forcefully submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, the alleged victim, was quite clear and unambiguous and there is nothing to disbelieve her statement. In view of the clear position of law that a conviction can be based solely on the statement of the alleged victim, if the same is believable, the learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellant. According to him, the alleged occurrence had been witnessed by P.W.2 and there were also other witnesses who had supported the prosecution case. Thus the order of conviction and sentence was just, proper and in consonance with law and it is a fit case where the order of the Court below should not be interfered with by this Court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, being the final Court of facts, we once again scrutinished the evidence, both oral and documentary. It appears that P.W.1 was an able-bodied tribal woman aged thirty five years. She had gone to the jungle alone which pre-supposes that she had the mental courage and physical strength to overcome any ordeal. The prosecution allegation clearly reveals that the appellant was a thirty five years’ man and there was no allegation that any other person had associated him in committing the crime. She had gone to the jungle alone which pre-supposes that she had the mental courage and physical strength to overcome any ordeal. The prosecution allegation clearly reveals that the appellant was a thirty five years’ man and there was no allegation that any other person had associated him in committing the crime. The evidence also reveals that the appellant was not armed with any weapon and P.Ws 1 and 2 have not breathed a word regarding any threat held out by the appellant endangering P.W.1’s life. 8. The statement of P.W.2, the so-called eye-witness, clearly reveals that he found P.W.1 lying on the ground and the appellant on her. He has not stated that P.W.1 was either strug¬gling or making any endeavour to dislodge the appellant. The Lady Doctor P.W.6 who had examined P.W.1 clearly stated that P.W.1 was more than eighteen years and was a married lady. In her cross-examination she has clearly stated :- “I collected the vaginal swab of P.W.1 and examined it. I found no dead or living spermatozoa. I found no commission of sexual intercourse within twenty four hours.” P.W.1 was examined by the Lady Doctor on 7.9.1993. 9. According to the prosecution case, P.W.1 was forcibly pulled down to the ground in the jungle and was raped. Surpris¬ingly, no external injury, nor even a bruise was detected on the body of P.W.1 by the Lady Doctor. All other witnesses examined by the prosecution were having no direct knowledge and they had narrated what was told to them either by P.W. 1 or her husband P.W. 4. 10. The defence plea was not only denial of the occurrence but also that due to property dispute with informant and quarrel of the appellant with the informant on the day prior to the alleged date of incident the case had been falsely foisted. In support of such plea, two witnesses had been examined by the defence. Nothing much could be elicited from the statements of the D.Ws to disbelieve the defence plea. 11. After perusing the statements of the Doctor and other prosecution witnesses we are unable to accept the prosecution story without a pinch of salt. Here is a case where excepting P.W.1, and P.W.2 the person who claimed to have seen the occur¬rence, there is no other eye-witness. The medical evidence con¬tradicts the ocular statement of P.W.2. 11. After perusing the statements of the Doctor and other prosecution witnesses we are unable to accept the prosecution story without a pinch of salt. Here is a case where excepting P.W.1, and P.W.2 the person who claimed to have seen the occur¬rence, there is no other eye-witness. The medical evidence con¬tradicts the ocular statement of P.W.2. If P.W.2’s statement is believed, a suspicion arises with regard to the conduct of P.W.1. Admittedly P.W.1 was an able-bodied tribal lady, capable of taking care of herself. It was natural that she would have re¬sisted to the best of her ability if sexual intercourse was being committed on her against her consent. P.W.2’s evidence does not reveal that any resistance by P.W.1 was found by him. In fact P.W.2 walked inside the jungle when the crime as alleged was in the process. Law is well settled that it is not possible for a single man to commit sexual intercourse with a healthy adult female in full possession of her senses against her will. If there would have been any resistance by P.W.1, at least some scratches or bruises would have been found either on her body or the body of the appellant. The medical evidence clearly reveals that no external injury was detected. Though it was alleged that P.W.1 was raped during her menstrual period and that there was profuse bleeding due to rape, the wearing apparels of P.W.1 did not contain any bloodstain, as would appear from the chemical examination report Ext.11. This also throws a cloud of suspicion on the truthfulness of the prosecution case. A cumulative effect of the medical evidence coupled with the oral testimony throws a doubt on the correctness of the allegation of rape put forward by P.W.1 in her statement in Court. Thus the assessment of the entire evidence in the case leads us to the conclusion that prosecution has not succeeded to prove its case beyond all doubts. We have therefore no hesitation to set aside the convic¬tion and sentence passed against the appellant by the Court below. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court below is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. His bail-bond be discharged. CHIEF JUSTICE, I agree. Appeal allowed.