JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 19-1-1994 passed by III Additional Judge, Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No. 71/1992, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine R.I. for 1¾ years. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on 23-8-1991 at 11.00 p.m. victim was sleeping in her hut situated at village Tawanagar, appellant committed house trespass, caught hold of her, pressed her mouth and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. When she tried to cry he slapped her. He also threatened her not to lodge report. When he left her house she narrated the incident to Mahadev, Gangacharan and Veera. She lodged the report at police station Tawanagar on the next day at 7.15 a.m. Crime No. 27/91 under sections 452 and 376 was registered against the appellant. Victim was sent for medical examination which was conducted by Dr. Smt. Shimla Tikariya (PW-5). Her petticoat and slides were seized. Map was prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Appellant was arrested. He was also medically examined. He was found capable to perform sexual intercourse. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. Sagar from where report was received. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C., Itarsi who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. 3. Appellant was charged under sections 452 and 376 of Indian Penal Code to the effect that on 23-8-1991 he committed house trespass having made preparation of causing hurt to victim and also committed rape on her person. He abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and appellant did not examine any witness. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court found him guilty under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced thereunder as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by trial Court, instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court found him guilty under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced thereunder as stated hereinabove in para No. 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence passed by trial Court, instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 4. Shri A. Usmani was engaged by the appellant as his counsel but he did not appear to argue on the dates of hearing on 26-4-2008, 2-5-2008 and on 5-5-2008. Since the appeal was pending from 1994, therefore, Shri J.P.S. Oberai, learned counsel was appointed from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee to argue the matter on behalf of the appellant so that this appeal may be disposed of expeditiously hence arguments were heard. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The victim herself was not sure as to who has committed rape. Mahadev (PW-2) has deposed that victim told him that rapist was similar to the appellant. Mahadev (PW-2) and Ashok (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution case. There is difference in timing in making the report. Learned counsel further submitted that bad work is not rape, hence offence under section 376 is not made out. F.S.L. report has not been produced. Victim is an aged lady. She was involved in selling country-made liquor. She was arrested in such offence. She was suspecting that appellant has implicated her due to that reason, she has falsely implicated him. Offence has not been proved hence finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and he is entitled for acquittal. 6. On the contrary, Shri S. K. Kashyap, Dy.G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent/State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that F.I.R. was promptly lodged. She has named the appellant as rapist. He is not outsider therefore there is no question of misidentity. Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him, therefore, it does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 376 of Indian Penal Code? 8. Victim (PW-1) is the star witness to this case. Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him, therefore, it does not call for any interference. 7. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 376 of Indian Penal Code? 8. Victim (PW-1) is the star witness to this case. She has stated in her deposition that she was sleeping at her house. At about 11.00 p.m. appellant entered in her house, he penetrated his male organ into her private part and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will. When she tried to cry he pressed her mouth and also slapped her. She has clearly stated that appellant was identified in the light of Chimni. When the appellant went away she told the story to Mahadev, Gangacharan and Veera then she lodged the report at concerned police station. Her medical examination was also done. This witness has been subjected to lengthy and piercing cross-examination but her evidence has not been rebutted in cross-examination. Her testimony has nowhere been shattered on the material point regarding commission of rape and causing injury to her. Her evidence appears to be quite natural, probable and reliable. It is settled principle of law that conviction may be based on sole testimony of prosecutrix if found reliable. 9. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393 , it has been held that : "Unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused when her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, amounts to adding insult to injury." 10. Corroboration is admittedly only a rule of prudence [See State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247 ]. 11. Harprasad (PW-4) was Sarpanch of Tawanager at that time. He has also supported the version of prosecutrix by deposing that at about midnight victim came to his house and stated that the appellant has committed rape with her. He advised her to lodge the report. His evidence has not been shattered in cross-examination. 11. Harprasad (PW-4) was Sarpanch of Tawanager at that time. He has also supported the version of prosecutrix by deposing that at about midnight victim came to his house and stated that the appellant has committed rape with her. He advised her to lodge the report. His evidence has not been shattered in cross-examination. Thus this witness supports the version of victim that she immediately told the name of appellant who has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 12. Mahadev (PW-2), Gangacharan (PW-6) and Ashok (PW-6) are the persons to whom she narrated the incident. They have only stated that she told them that rape was done but did not tell as to who has committed rape. Mahadev (PW-2) and Ashok (PW-6) have been declared hostile by prosecution. Mahadev (PW-2) has admitted that the appellant is his neighbour. His relations are good. He wants that appellant be not convicted. It clearly indicates that he wants to save appellant hence resiled from the previous statement (Ex.P/11). Ashok (PW-6) has also admitted that victim told him after 3-4 days that appellant has committed rape. Gangacharan (PW-3) has stated that victim told her that rapist was similar to Onkar. 13. On appreciation of their evidence it is manifestly clear that she narrated the incident to these witnesses but these witnesses are twisting their evidence on the point that she did not name the appellant. It has already been established that victim identified the appellant in chimni light. Some altercation also took place in between them. The appellant is of the same locality in which victim resides. Therefore, she clearly identified him and told to these witnesses also accordingly. Now these witnesses are resiling from their previous version with the avowed purpose to save appellant from punishment. Therefore no reliance can be placed on the evidence of such witnesses. 14. T. S. Tomar (PW-8) has stated that victim has lodged the report on 24-3-1991 at 7.15 a.m. which has been written by him. Thereafter she was sent for medical examination which was done by Dr. Smt. Shimla Tikariya (PW-5). She has stated in her deposition that on examination she found the following injuries on her person : (i) Right breast 3 abrasion 1" x 1/8" above downward ½" later to left 6th costocondarl junction. Bruises ¼" diameter on upper ends left shoulder. Thereafter she was sent for medical examination which was done by Dr. Smt. Shimla Tikariya (PW-5). She has stated in her deposition that on examination she found the following injuries on her person : (i) Right breast 3 abrasion 1" x 1/8" above downward ½" later to left 6th costocondarl junction. Bruises ¼" diameter on upper ends left shoulder. (ii) 3 small abrasions varying ½" to ¾" by 1/8" on right shoulder. (iii) Swelling over right side upper lip ¾" in diameter-inside the lip mucus membrane is red. (iv) 2 abrasions 2½" x 1/8" at junction of upper 2/3 and lower 1/3 of thigh. According to her opinion, these injuries were caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours. She did not find any injury on the private part of victim and opined that the victim was habitual of sexual intercourse. She has submitted medical report Ex. P/5. 15. Several questions have been put to this witness in cross-examination whether the injuries found on her person may be caused by fall. For some questions she has answered positively and for others negatively. But the question of causing injury by fall does not arise because victim sleeping in her house in the odd hours of night. Therefore, such question and their answers have no any bearing on the material issue. 16. Thus, from the statement of Dr. Smt. Shimla Tikariya (PW-5) this fact is corroborated that the injuries were found on her person as detailed in medical report Ex.P/5. 17. T. S. Tomar (P.W.8) has seized petticoat and slides of victim vide seizure memo Ex.P-9. Seized articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar by draft memo Ex.P-11 from where the report has been received but it has not been marked exhibited and is lying in the 'B' part of the record, therefore, cannot be read in evidence. This is the slackness on the part of prosecuting agency but no any benefit can be extended to appellant of slackness. 18. It is evidently clear that victim and appellant are the residents of the same village or locality. She knows him very well. She identified him in the light of chimni. There is no question of misidentity. 19. She has clearly stated that it is the appellant who has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and also slapped her. She has narrated the story to other witnesses immediately after the incident. She knows him very well. She identified him in the light of chimni. There is no question of misidentity. 19. She has clearly stated that it is the appellant who has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and also slapped her. She has narrated the story to other witnesses immediately after the incident. Harprasad (P.W.4) has supported her version. She lodged the report on the next day in the morning. In the facts and circumstances, the delay has properly been explained. Her evidence that the appellant caused injuries to her by fist and kick blows has been supported by the evidence of Dr. (Smt.) Shimla Tikaria (P.W.5) who found injuries on her person. Her version finds support from the medical evidence. She was widow of 50 years of age, hence medically corroboration of rape was not likely in such circumstances. The essential ingredients of offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code has been proved. There is no question of falsely implicating the appellant. No any evidence has been adduced to prove defence. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the case against the appellant. The trial Court has dealt with every aspect of the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant. There is no any infirmity, illegality or perversity in such finding, hence, it is hereby affirmed. Minimum sentence as provided for the offence has been awarded hence does not call for interference. The appeal is meritless and deserves to be set aside. 20. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is directed to surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad on 15-7-2008 to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.