( 1 ) ORDER of conviction and sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions judge, Koraput-Jeypore, Camp at nowrangpur, dated 22-4-1989 in S. C. No. 24 of 1989/ (S. C. No. 146/87) convicting appellant No. 1-accused Budu Domb @ Harijan under Section 376 of the IPC and appellant no. 2-accused Mahadev Harijan under Section 376 read with Section 109 of the IPC and sentencing them each to undergo R. I. for five years is under challenge in this criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 23-5-1987 morning Lokinath Harijan, the husband of the victim lady (P. W. l)had gone to village Ambadola and her father-in-law had been to the forest and the victim was alone in the house at village Dongiriguda under nowrangpur Police Station jurisdiction of undivided Koraput District. The victim lady after taking bath was lighting fire to cook food and at this moment both the accused came to her house and asked for fire. Accused Mahadev stood at the entrance of the house and accused Budu entered inside the house on the plea of taking fire from her and after entering the house he shut the door from inside and when the victim challenged and protested as to why he entered inside the house in the absence of her husband, accused-Budu caught hold of her hands, made her lie on the ground in spite of her protest and shouts, squeezed her breasts, removed her clothes making her naked and thereafter raising both her legs ravished her sexually in spite of her protest. During physical protest when the victim lady turned around the semen stained her thighs, which she wiped out, and the accused stood up and she also stood up and shouted and cried. By this time the witnesses Dhobi harijan and Tian Harijan (P. Ws. 3 and 4) came over to her house but accused Mahadev harijan who was standing outside the house obstructed their way and assaulted them. Accused Budu also Joined him and assaulted them stating as to why they disturbed him while he was enjoying the lady. The victim also came out half-naked and narrated about the sexual ravishment by accused-Budu and thereafter both the accused person fled away. Accused Budu also Joined him and assaulted them stating as to why they disturbed him while he was enjoying the lady. The victim also came out half-naked and narrated about the sexual ravishment by accused-Budu and thereafter both the accused person fled away. After the husband of the victim came, a Panchayat was convened but the accused persons did not attend the panchayat and thereafter oral report was lodged in Nowrangpur Police Station on the very same day at 6. 30 p. m. which was reduced to writing by the Officer-in-charge and after the same was read over she put her l. T. I. She also produced the wearing apparels, a piece of loin cloth and some broken pieces of glass bangles which was seized by the Police. The investigation commenced, the victim as well as accused-Budu were sent for medical examination and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons and accused-Budu Domb alias Harijan was charged under S. 376, I. P. C. and the accused-Mahadev Harijan under Section 376 read with Section 109,1. P. C. , and both of them in addition to that, charged under section 323 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and as they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, the trial commenced. ( 3 ) THE plea of both the accused persons is one of complete denial. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses including the victim informant (P. W. 1); the post-occurrence witnesses immediately arrived P. Ws. 3 and 4; the doctor (P. W. 2) who examined the victim on the next day, i. e. , 24-5-1987 at 10. 30 p. m. , the member of the Panchayat (P. W. 5), one witness to the seizure (P. W. 6); and the husband of the victim (P. W. 7 ). 3 and 4; the doctor (P. W. 2) who examined the victim on the next day, i. e. , 24-5-1987 at 10. 30 p. m. , the member of the Panchayat (P. W. 5), one witness to the seizure (P. W. 6); and the husband of the victim (P. W. 7 ). ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants taking me through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record that of the victim informant and the lady doctor who ex-amined her submitted forcefully that the doctor who examined the victim did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse and if at all there was rape of the victim lady and according to the victim her both thighs were smeared with semen, the doctor certainly could have noticed matting of the pubic hair and stains of semen nearabout her private part and thighs which she has specifically stated she did not find. In this connection, he drew my attention to the evidence of the victim (P. W. 1) and submitted that in her cross-examination at paragraph 5 she had stated that she did not take bath after the occurrence till she came to the Police Station. In this connection, it is submitted by the learned counsel for- the State that the victim lady was examined by the doctor on the next day in the night at 10. 30 p. m. and there is no statement by her that she did not take bath on the next day. In absence of such statement that she had not taken her bath on the next day, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is of no relevance and needs no consideration. Apart from that, I have gone through the evidence of the victim lady thoroughly and I find absolutely no material to disbelieve their statements on the fact that the accused-Budu entered into her house in absence of her husband and ravished her sexually which has been thoroughly corroborated by P. Ws. 3 and 4 and there is no iota of material brought in the mouth of any of the P. Ws. as to why this married pregnant lady would come forward to depose against these accused persons in the manner she has deposed implicating appellant No. 1 in her rape overpowering her, entering inside her house and shutting the door from inside. as to why this married pregnant lady would come forward to depose against these accused persons in the manner she has deposed implicating appellant No. 1 in her rape overpowering her, entering inside her house and shutting the door from inside. She has nowhere stated that she had sustained any sort of injury either in her private part, her breasts or any part of her body during the course of the occurrence. She being a married lady used to sexual intercourse and the medical examination taking place after more than thirty-six hours of the occurrence find of no sign of sexual intercourse by the doctor is natural. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted further that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim should not be relied on to sustain the conviction of the appellants. The learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State cited before me a recent decision of the Apex Court, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 6009 : (2006 Cri LJ 139) (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram) where their Lordships have held that "conviction for an offence under Section 376 -Rape can be founded on testimony of pros-ecutrix alone. Evidence of prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in her statement, immaterial. " i have already found on the assessment of the evidence on record that there is abso; lutely no reason as to why this married lady would come forward to speak against these accused persons implicating appellant No. 1 in a case of rape on her. Her evidence is thoroughly reliable and trustworthy and the same has been corroborated by P. Ws. 3 and 4 who had arrived near her house hearing her shout and cry from inside the house and had seen her coming out of her house half naked and they have heard her narrating the entire incident as to how the accused-Budu committed rape on her. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge under Section 376 of the I. P. C. and uphold the same and so also the sentence passed by him which is affirmed hereby. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge under Section 376 of the I. P. C. and uphold the same and so also the sentence passed by him which is affirmed hereby. As regards appellant No. 2 Mahadev Harijan, it is argued by the learned counsel for the said appellant that he had neither entered into the house nor has orally or physically abetted the commission of rape by accused-Budu. The evidence was that he was simply standing outside and he came with Budu and standing outside the house and was also present when the informant and accused budu came out of the house after the occurrence. The charge under Section 323 read with Section 34,1. P. C. has not been proved and there is also no definite evidence to that effect for which learned Addl. Sessions judge has acquitted both the accused persons of the said charge. In absence of any evidence as against, Mahadev Harijan that he had in any way abetted the commission of offence of rape either by oral instigation or any sort of physical participation and on the face of clear cut evidence that the door was shut from inside and he was standing outside the house, in my considered opinion, none of the ingredients of abetment of offence of rape has been made out, I set aside the impugned order of conviction of accused mahadev Harijan and direct his acquittal. He shall be discharged of the bail bond. ( 8 ) I dismiss the appeal in respect of accused-Budu Domb alias Harijan, confirm the order of conviction and sentence and direct that he shall surrender before the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Koraput at jeypore within a period of one month from today to undergo the sentence. Order accordingly. Order accordingly. .