Judgment I.M. Quddusi, J.— This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.10.1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 7/92 of 1987 convicting and sentencing the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence punishable under Section 451, IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC with the direction that both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by the complainant-alleged victim whose name is not being disclosed only describing in short as ‘K’, after nine days from the date of the incident, i.e. at 8.00 p.m. on 9.1.1987 at Kanas P.S., after scribing the oral FIR and obtaining her thumb impression. 3. According to the prosecution, on 1.1.1987 at about 6.00 P.M. the appellant entered into the cow-shed of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4) and caught hold of his daughter-in-law, namely, ‘K’ (P.W.7) while she was tying cattle. Soon thereafter she made an alarm and got herself freed and in order to save herself, she ran towards her bed room. The appellant followed her, entered into her bed room where she was laid on the ground and thereafter committed rape on her. Hearing the shout of ‘K’, Pahali Kandi (P.W.I) and Dhobani Dei (P.W.2) came to the spot and on seeing them, the appellant ran away to his house. Thereafter when her husband returned from the work. He was also told about the occurrence. Thereafter village headman Amareswar Malla alias Babaji (P.W.3) was intimated to decide the matter in the village and efforts were made to bring about a reconciliation between the parties, but the appellant did not appear at the Panch meeting and as a result of which the incident was informed to the police. The police registered the case, investigated into the matter and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. The prosecution had examined as many as eight witnesses, out of whom P.W.7 ‘K’ was the alleged victim and P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the witnesses who had allegedly seen the appellant coming out from the room of the victim. P.W.5 Dr. Artabandhu Naik had conducted medical examination of the appellant and P.W.6 Dr. Bijayalaxmi Mohanty had examined the victim ‘K’ (P.W.7) medically. P.W.8 Dambarudhar Srichandan was the Investigating Officer of the case. 1 and 2 were the witnesses who had allegedly seen the appellant coming out from the room of the victim. P.W.5 Dr. Artabandhu Naik had conducted medical examination of the appellant and P.W.6 Dr. Bijayalaxmi Mohanty had examined the victim ‘K’ (P.W.7) medically. P.W.8 Dambarudhar Srichandan was the Investigating Officer of the case. P.W.3 Amareswar Malla alias Babaji was headman of the village and P.W.4 Bisi Kandi is the father-in-law of the alleged victim ‘K’ (P.W.7). None of the prosecution witnesses except P.W.7 - victim herself is the eye­witness to the occurrence. Only according to the prosecution, P.W.1 Pahali Kandi and P.W.2 Dhobani Dei and for the first time reached at the spot when the appellant was coming out from the room of the prosecutrix. However, P.W.1 was declared hostile. 4. First of all the evidence of P.W.1 Pahali Kandi and P.W.2 Dhobani Dei are liable to be examined. P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 4.00 P.M. when he was returning from the work, he heard somebody crying inside the house of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4). When he went to his house, he saw the daughter-in-law of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4), namely ‘K’ was crying, but he did not ask her anything and seeing her crying he left that place and none else was present at the time of such crying. In his cross-examination made on behalf of the prosecution, he has admitted that he had made statement before the I.O. (P.W.8) that while he went to the house of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4) hearing the cry, he saw the appellant running away from his house and he has also stated before the I.O. (P.W.8) that some broken bangles were lying near the door of the room where she was crying. But he denied that he told the I.O. (P.W.8) that the appellant first caught hold of ‘K’ in the cow-shed and when he escaped and entered into her bed room, the appellant followed her and committed rape on her in that bed room. He has also denied that he made any such statement before the I.O. (P.W.8) that Dhobani (P.W.2) was present there before he reached at the spot. P.W.2 Dhobani Dei made her statement before the Court that hearing the shouts of ‘K’ she came to the spot. At that time he was working at her bari. He has also denied that he made any such statement before the I.O. (P.W.8) that Dhobani (P.W.2) was present there before he reached at the spot. P.W.2 Dhobani Dei made her statement before the Court that hearing the shouts of ‘K’ she came to the spot. At that time he was working at her bari. When she arrived at the spot she saw accused-appellant was going out of the house of ‘K’. Then she went inside and asked ‘K’ about the occurrence. She told her that she was raped by the accused-appellant. She also showed her saya which was stained with semen. In cross-examination she stated that her house is 100 cubits away from the house of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4) and her bari is also 100 cubits away from her house. She further stated that when she entered into the house of ‘K’ none else except ‘K’ was present inside the house. But she had not said about the occurrence to anybody after hearing the same from ‘K’. Further she has stated that she cannot say if there was any window in the room and also cannot say to which side was the door of that room and also cannot say what articles were kept in that room. She has further stated that she cannot describe the length and breadth of the bed room. A question was put before her that she had not stated before the I.O. (P.W.8) that while she was working at her bari she heard the shout of ‘K’ and came to the spot. She denied the same and said that she had said so before the I.O. (P.W.8). Further she has stated that during her presence at the spot no one came over there. Now in this regard statement of the I.O. (P.W.8), namely, Dambarudhar Srichandan is liable to be perused who stated that he had examined Dhobani Dei (P.W.2) on 10. 1. 1987 and she had not stated before him (P.W.8) that while she was working in her bari she heard the shout and came to the spot. Further he has stated that he examined Pahali Kandi (P.W.I) and it is a fact that he has stated before him that while he came to the house of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4) after hearing the cry, he saw the accused-appellant running away from the house of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4). Further he has stated that he examined Pahali Kandi (P.W.I) and it is a fact that he has stated before him that while he came to the house of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4) after hearing the cry, he saw the accused-appellant running away from the house of Bisi Kandi (P.W.4). He has further stated that it is a fact that he has told before him that being asked, ‘K’ told him that accused-appellant first caught hold of her in the cow-shed and when she escaped and entered into her bed room, the accused-appellant followed her and committed rape on her in that bed room. He has further stated that P.W.1 has also stated before him that when he arrived, Dhobani (P.W.2) was already present there at the spot. 5. From the statement of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it is clear that P.W.2 stated that when she entered into the premises where the incident had occurred, nobody was present there and nobody remained there when she left the place. But she saw the accused-appellant going out from the room. P.W.1 also stated that he reached at the spot after hearing the cry of the prosecutrix ‘K’. But it is very surprising that none of the witnesses have said that they have seen each other. Although before the I.O. (P.W.8) P.W.1 has stated that he had seen P.W.2 there, but P.W.2 made a statement that no one was present there, meaning thereby there is denial of P.W.2 that P.W.1 had also reached at the spot. It is to be noticed that if it is presumed that the appellant was running from the room of the prosecutrix then that was a momentum, meaning thereby that he could have disappeared within seconds as his house was adjacent to the house of the prosecutrix but according to the prosecution story two witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2) had seen him running away from the room of the prosecutrix. Hence it is improbable that they would not have seen each other. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as the prosecution version in that respect is also contradictory as according to the prosecution the I.O. (P.W.8) proved the statement of P.W. 1 u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. that when the I.O. (P.W.8) asked the prosecutrix, she narrated the incident to him. Hence it is improbable that they would not have seen each other. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 as well as the prosecution version in that respect is also contradictory as according to the prosecution the I.O. (P.W.8) proved the statement of P.W. 1 u/s. 161, Cr.P.C. that when the I.O. (P.W.8) asked the prosecutrix, she narrated the incident to him. If she was narrating the incident to the I.O. (P.W.8) and it is believed that P.W.2 also reached at the spot and seen the appellant running away, then it may not be believable that when P.W.2 reached at the spot, no one was present there or when P.W.1 reached at the spot, P.W.2 was not present there. Therefore, both the statements are contradictory to each other and, therefore, the same are not believable. 6. Now the statement of the prosecutrix ‘K’ (P.W.7) is liable to be examined. As the prosecutrix is the sole eye-witness of the incident, her evidence need to be examined cautiously with the following facts. 7. The appellant’s father and the father-in-law of the prosecutrix are real brothers and were neighbours to each other. The appellant was a married person and has two sons; elder one is fourteen years and the younger one is aged about seven years. Besides he had his wife and mother-in-law who were living with him in the house. He was earning his livelihood by pulling rickshaw and by doing other manual labour. This has come from the statement of Amareswar Malla alias Babaji (P.W.3). Appellant is the ellatum son-in-law of Keshab. Keshab and Bisi Kandi have a common courtyard to their houses without any intervening fence or wall and including the cow-shed Bisi has three rooms in his house. He himself, his wife and his son are also labourers. P.W.7, the prosecutrix in support of her case told that she had shown the saree and saya to the I.O. (P.W.8). But according to the statement of the I.O. (P.W.8), the saree and saya which were shown to him did not contain any stain. Further the prosecutrix stated in her statement that it took about an hour to complete the offence of rape and there was also discharge on her part when the rape on her was committed. Further after the rape was over, appellant stayed in that room for about fifteen minutes. Further the prosecutrix stated in her statement that it took about an hour to complete the offence of rape and there was also discharge on her part when the rape on her was committed. Further after the rape was over, appellant stayed in that room for about fifteen minutes. She further stated that due to the forcible rape she got injuries on her buttocks, breast and private part which were also shown to the doctor at the time of examination and the said injuries were visible at that time. But according to the statement of P.W.6, Bijyalaxmi Mohanty who had examined the prosecutrix on 10.1.1987, there was no recent sign of sexual intercourse. She found no external or internal injuries on the body or private part of the person of the prosecutrix although she has stated that if the swab was examined pathologically one week after the rape was committed, it cannot be determined that there was sexual intercourse but in case of major injury like laceration and if it is accompanied by infection, it can be detected beyond seven days. But the mark of injury can be found. However, P.W.5 Dr. Artabandhu Naik, who had examined appellant and found no external injury, no scratch or abrasions on the genital, opined that if the injured is examined ten days after the injury was committed, no injury can be found on his person. If at all he had received some injuries it would have been cured within this time. But even after ten days in some cases mark of injury can still be visible and if the swab is examined pathologically, even after ten days, it can be known that there was intercourse. 8. In view of the two different opinions from the side of prosecution, i.e. P.Ws. 5 and 6 who are Medical Officers and nothing was found on the person of the appellant or the prosecutrix, it can be said beyond any doubt that medical reports do not support the prosecution. 9. As discussed above, about the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, there are catena of decisions that in such circumstances the evidence of the prosecutrix should be taken with care and cautiousness. 9. As discussed above, about the sole evidence of the prosecutrix, there are catena of decisions that in such circumstances the evidence of the prosecutrix should be taken with care and cautiousness. This Court is conscious about the decisions of Hon’ble apex Court where it has been held that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of Judicial credence in every rape case and the evidence of prosecutrix need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of accomplice. The law also does not require corroboration and if the evidence of prosecutrix is believed, there is no bar to convict the accused on her testimony alone but the question is whether the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when beyond the probabilities is liable to be accepted or not. On one hand the role of the prosecutrix that she raised alarm when the appellant caught hold of her in the cow-shed while she was tying cattle and further on the other hand she gives statement that the duration when the offence was continuously being committed, was one hour and after completion of the offence the appellant stayed in her room upto fifteen minutes more. In such situation when a lady protesting and raising alarm and then the accused committing rape on her duration of which is one hour and nobody is coming to save her and even thereafter the accused-appellant remains in the very bed-room of the lady for fifteen minutes more and adjacent to that room other people including the family of the appellant also reside, the statement of the prosecutrix is not believable as it is unnatural and beyond probabilities and not corroborated by any evidence. 10. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt and as such the appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 7/92 of 1987 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed. *******