JUDGMENT (Surjit Singh, J.) (Oral) - Appellant-State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Session Court whereby the respondent who was tried for offences punishable under Section 376, 323 and 506 I.P.C. has been acquitted. 2.Allegation which were made against the respondent may be noticed. On 14.9.1991, a group of women, including the prosecutrix and men from village Pukhru in Bhattiyat Tehsil of Chamba district went to see a fair at some place in the adjoining District of Kangra. In the evening, the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW3, accompanied by five ladies named Kalasho, Seema, Billo, Sunni Devi and Pushpa and the respondent and his Chacha Magzi Ram started back for the village from the site of the fair. On the way, respondent consumed liquor at a place called Manghiana. Around 8.30 p.m. the companion ladies of the prosecutrix, left the prosecutrix behind a few yards, the respondent who was following the women, started making vulgar utterances. He caught hold the prosecutrix by her arm and dragged her towards the grassy lands. On hearing the vulgar utterings of the respondent, other ladies started moving faster. The respondent then committed rape on the prosecutrix. After some time, one of the companion ladies of the prosecutrix, named Billo accompanied by her father-in-law Manak reached the grassy land where the prosecutrix had been raped. Then respondent, even after having committed the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, was still lying on her and pressing her breasts, when said Billo accompanied by her father-in-law reached the spot. On seeing the above named two witnesses. Billo and Manak, the respondent ran away. Prosecutrix wore her salwar and went to her village in the company of the said Billo and her father-in-law Manak. When the respondent dragged the prosecutrix to the grassy land and with intent to commit rape used force against her, the prosecutrix put up resistance and in that process, her bangles got broken and the shirt also got unstitched at one of the sleeves. Next day, the prosecutrix went to Police Post Sihunta and lodged a report (Copy Exhibit - PD) The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Following seven injuries were noticed on her person by Dr.Joti Pathania (PW1) who conducted the medical examination: (1) Abrasion on right medical canthus of eye. There was clotted blood, blackish in colour 1/2 cm in diameter. Next day, the prosecutrix went to Police Post Sihunta and lodged a report (Copy Exhibit - PD) The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Following seven injuries were noticed on her person by Dr.Joti Pathania (PW1) who conducted the medical examination: (1) Abrasion on right medical canthus of eye. There was clotted blood, blackish in colour 1/2 cm in diameter. (2) Linear abrasion on the right side of alia-nasae, 1/2 cm. in length, brown in colour, at the side of nose pin. (3) Abrasion on left side of forehead 1.2 cm in length 2 cm above lateral end of brow. (4) Two abrasions over the medical boarder of left forearm 5 cm and 6 cm above the writ joint, lower is 1/2 cm irregular with clotted blood and upper abrasin is 1 cm in length, placed transversely. (5) Linear abrasion 2 cm in length over the left flexor surface of forearm, 3 1/2 cm above the writ joint. (6) Conclusion on right skin 5 cm below the knee joint it was 3 m in diameter bluish red in colour. (7) Contusion on right shin 5 cm below the knee joint 2 1/2 cm in diameter. There was an abrasion on the centre of the confusion, Nails of the patient were cut. There was no debris underneath, Gait was normal. No difficulty in micturtion. She had not passed stools.” 2.Doctor prepares slides of the vaginal swab from the posterior fornix. 3.During the course of investigation, the cloths of the prosecutrix were taken into possession. Her shirt was fond to be unstitched at one sleeve. Her clothes were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found human semen on her salwar. The slide of vaginal smear was also sent to the Chemical Examiner, human semen was found in that smear also. On the completion of the investigation, the respondent was challaned. 4.Trial Court has acquitted the respondent in spite of the prosecutrix, who appeared as PW3, having categorically stated that she had been subjected to rape by the respondent and her testimony being corroborated by the recovery of broken bangles from the spot, presence of semen on her salwar and in her vaginal smear and presence of injuries on her person. 4.Trial Court has acquitted the respondent in spite of the prosecutrix, who appeared as PW3, having categorically stated that she had been subjected to rape by the respondent and her testimony being corroborated by the recovery of broken bangles from the spot, presence of semen on her salwar and in her vaginal smear and presence of injuries on her person. Trial Court has observed that none of the persons who were accompanying the prosecutrix has corroborated her testimony and Manak Ram, the father-in-law of Billo, who allegedly reached the spot after the commission of offence of rape had not been examined. Trial Court has also observed that the site, where the prosecutrix was subjected to rape, was stony and grassy, but no injury on her back had been noticed by Dr. Joti Pathania (PW1) who conducted her medical examination. Another reason given by the Trial Court is that it could not have been possible for the respondent to loosen the string of the salwar of the prosecutrix with one hand when according to the prosecution, he had placed the other hand on her mouth to prevent her from raising alarm. It has also been reasoned by the trial Court that where a married women make the allegation of rape, corroboration of her testimony is required and in support of this reason, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheikh Zakir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 911. In para 35 of its judgment, trial Court has summarized the reasons for the acquittal of the respondent in the following words: “(i) It looks highly improbable that accused will try to commit rape upon her co-villager in the presence of four woman folk of her area, his own wife, as well as in presence of his uncle, whose presence at the spot has been established. (ii) It looks highly improvable that a co-villager of the prosecutrix will not support the prosecutrix in such eventually when a serious offence has been committed against a woman. (iii) Three women accompanying the prosecutrix were not examined alongwith other person who come to rescue her while fourth woman when examined did not support her. (iv) Injuries on the person of the prosecutrix are not pointing out to the fact that they can be only sustained in case of a sexual assault. (iii) Three women accompanying the prosecutrix were not examined alongwith other person who come to rescue her while fourth woman when examined did not support her. (iv) Injuries on the person of the prosecutrix are not pointing out to the fact that they can be only sustained in case of a sexual assault. (v) No comparison of the sperms of the accused was done to establish that the sperms found on the salwar of the prosecutrix were that of the accused. (vi) Injury to male sex organ is not an universal phenomenon as well as that there was no injury on private part of the woman, is not sufficient to held that her statement does not inspire confidence but these can also be taken as additional factors particularly injury on private parts of the woman on her thighs or on back when she was a well built middle aged woman who as per her version had resisted this attempt.” 5.We have gone through the evidence and heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the counsel for the respondent. 6.None of the reasons, recorded by the trial Court, can be said the factually as also legally correct. The reasoning is totally perverse. The judgment of the Supreme Court which has been relied upon by the trial Court i.e. Sheikh Zakir V . State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 911 is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix, even if it be assumed that corroboration of her testimony was required, is fully corroborated by the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are the recovery of broken bangles from the spot, injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, presence of semen on the salwar of the prosecutrix as also in her vaginal smear. 7.Trial Court has observed that the bangles could have been got brown on the spot due to quarrel between the prosecutrix and Pushpa, the wife of the respondent, who too was accompanying the party which included the prosecutrix, the respondent and some other person. There is absolutely no material on record indicating trial any quarrel had taken place between the prosecutrix and Pushpa, the wife of the respondent. A suggestion, no doubt was thrown to the prosecutrix in the cross-examination that there had been a quarrel between her and Purhpa but she denied the suggestion. There is absolutely no material on record indicating trial any quarrel had taken place between the prosecutrix and Pushpa, the wife of the respondent. A suggestion, no doubt was thrown to the prosecutrix in the cross-examination that there had been a quarrel between her and Purhpa but she denied the suggestion. But for this suggestion which the prosecutrix categorically denied, there is nothing on the record suggesting that any such quarrel had taken place. 8.Regarding the presence of semen on the salwar and vaginal smear of the prosecutrix, the trial Court has observed that the prosecutrix on the fateful night, stayed at the house of one Narso’s and the semen stains might have appeared because of her having sexual intercourse with some one of Narso’s place. Trial court has believed the prosecution version that the prosecutrix own husband was not available to have sexual intercourse with her on that night, on account of his having gone with goats to the pastures on high hills. The observations of the trial Court about the prosecutrix having spent the night at Narso’s place, is not supported by the evidence on record. Prosecutrix very categorically stated that she has gone to her own house on the fateful night, because her children were all alone. Only a suggestion was given to the prosecutrix that she spent the night at Narso’s place, which she denied. 9.Trial Court has not given any reason at all for dis-believing the corroborative evidence in the form of injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix by PW1 Dr. Joti Pathania. The reason given by the trial Court for disbelieving the prosecutrix is that there were no injuries on her back, it is true that there were no injuries on the back of the prosecutrix but the evidence on record shows that the site where she had been subjected to rape was grassy. Trial Court has recorded that the site was stony. The observations is unfounded and not supported by the evidence on record. Trial Court has further observed that the prosecutrix claimed that she had been dragged to the grassy land but the absence of injuries on her back belied her testimony. This reasoning is also perverse. Prosecutrix no where stated that her back was touching the ground when she was dragged. Trial Court has further observed that the prosecutrix claimed that she had been dragged to the grassy land but the absence of injuries on her back belied her testimony. This reasoning is also perverse. Prosecutrix no where stated that her back was touching the ground when she was dragged. Injuries were there on the legs of the prosecutrix which indicated that her legs were touching the ground when she was dragged to the grassy land. 10.Before proceeding further, we may observe that it is by now well settled that no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is required. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmukh Singh AIR 1996 S.C. 1393 has unequivocally ruled that conviction of a rapist can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration, provided it inspires confidence. The aforesaid judgment has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court in a large number of subsequent cases. 11.Trial Court has placed great emphasis on the non-corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix by any of the person who were accompanying her on her way back home from the site of the fair as also Manak Ram, who allegedly reached the spot accompanied by Billo (PW10). Trial Court has observing that all the persons who were accompanying the prosecutrix, including PW10 and her father-in-law Manak Ram, belong other village and there was no reason for them not to depose in her favour had her story been true. We may observe that the respondent also belongs to the same village as the prosecutrix and the persons who accompanied the prosecutrix. It is a matter of common knowledge that for a variety of reasons, people avoid testifying in criminal cases, in favour of the prosecution. One of the reasons for the witnesses staying away from the Courts or not supporting the prosecution case is that they want to avoid any confrontation with the accused who in the event of their testifying against him, may turn his guns towards them and course some harm to them or their near and dears ones. There are several other reasons. Some time the witnesses are won over by use of money or muscle power. There are several other reasons. Some time the witnesses are won over by use of money or muscle power. In any case, where in a criminal matter, a prosecutrix in a case pertaining to sexual offence or an injured person in a case of involving use of criminal force testified about the allegation and medico legal evidence lends credence to her/his testimony, the charge against accused cannot be dismissed only for the reason that no witness, other than the victim, has supported the prosecution story. 12.Trial Court has observed, placing reliance upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharwad Bhoginibhai Hijribhai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753, that corroboration may be insisted upon where woman had attained majority and is found in a compromising position and there is likelihood of her having levelled the allegation, on account of instinct of self preservation or when the “probability factor” is bound to be out of tune. There is no material on record that the respondent was found in a compromising position with the respondent nor is the probability factor out of tune in this case. In fact, the respondent denies having committed the sexual intercourse. 13.Plea raised by the respondent is that he has been falsely implicated because of his enmity with Narso, a cousin of the prosecutrix, who accompanies her Police Post Sihunta, when she went there to lodge the report. There is no material on record suggestive of any enmity between the respondent and said Narso, except that the respondent in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has stated that there is enmity between Narso and because of that he has got him involved in this false case using the prosecutrix as a fool. He has not given the particulars of the alleged enmity. Also no particulars of any enmity were suggested to the prosecutrix or other witness of the prosecution, in any case, it is not believable that a married woman, putting her honour and matrimonial life at stake, would make a false accusation of rape, on the asking of a cousin, who happens to have some unspecified enmity with the person against whom the allegation is made. 14.In view of the above discussed position, we have no manner of doubt that the judgment of the trial Court is not based on the evidence on record. 14.In view of the above discussed position, we have no manner of doubt that the judgment of the trial Court is not based on the evidence on record. The reasoning given by the trial Court in support of its judgment is not sound or cogent. Consequently, the appeal is accepted, Judgment of the trial Court, acquitting the respondent, is set aside. The respondent is convicted of the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. However, we find no evidence in support of charge of voluntarily causing injury, under Section 323 and intimidation under Section 506 I.P.C. Hence, he is acquitted of these two counts. He be produced in person on 10.4.2008 for being heard on the point of quantum of sentence. 15.Learned counsel representing the respondent says that it may not be easy for him to contact the respondent, the matter being an old one. He says that some process may be issued from the Court for securing the presence of the respondent. We, therefore, order that non-bailable warrant of arrest for production of the respondent on the aforesaid dated (10.4.2008) be issued. M.R.B. —————-