JUDGMENT B.K. PATEL, J. — By the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. Case No.317 of 2005, the appellant has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 365, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for three months, each under Sections 365 and 366 of the I.P.C.; and to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands,), in default to undergo R.I. for three months, under Section 376 of the I.P.C. 2. Law was set into the motion on the basis of report lodged by victim-P.W.1’s father, the informant P.W.4 on 13.11.2003 before P.W.16, S.I. of Police of Nemala Police Out Post under Salipur Police Station. Prosecution case, in a nut¬shell, is that on 11.11.2003 there was immersion procession of Lord Kartikeswar in the occurrence village. In order to witness the procession P.W.1 was standing in front of their house in the evening. After some time, victim P.W.1 was found missing. Inspite of search, she could not be traced in the night. In the following morning appellant’s mother left P.W.1 in her house. On enquiry by P.W.4 and his family members including victim’s mother P.W.5, P.W.1 started crying and stated that, when she was standing in front of their house, the appellant and co-accused Bina @ Mano¬ranjan Behera gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth, forcibly lifted her despite her resistance by holding her legs and head to a little distance, and thereafter took her in a vehicle to a house. They confined the victim locking the house from outside. Alarm raised by her was subsided by the sound of an audio system which was blowing at full volume in the nearby room. Around midnight, appellant and co-accused entered into and closed the room from inside. Despite protest raised by P.W.1, appellant raped her against her will in a drunken stage. Thereafter, he left closing the door from outside. P.W.1 remained inside the room crying till morning when co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera opened the door and asked her to go to her house. P.W.1 insisted that she would go home with the appellant only. Despite protest raised by P.W.1, appellant raped her against her will in a drunken stage. Thereafter, he left closing the door from outside. P.W.1 remained inside the room crying till morning when co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera opened the door and asked her to go to her house. P.W.1 insisted that she would go home with the appellant only. Co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera called appellant’s mother who asked her to come with her to go to appellant’s house. While accompanying appel¬lant’s mother, she was abandoned by appellant’s mother in her house. P.W.4 disclosed regarding the occurrence before the Sar¬panch P.W.6 and other co-villagers. As per their decision, the victim was taken to the house of the appellant where she squatted in the verandah. However, as neither the appellant nor his par¬ents came to the house and attempts made by the villagers to bring about an amicable solution failed, it was decided to report the matter in the police station. Accordingly, F.I.R. Ext.3, scribed by P.W.11, was lodged. P.W.16 took up investigation in course of which witnesses were examined, seizures were affected and victim and appellant were medically examined. P.W.17, S.I. of Police of Nemala Out Post took charge of investigation on 01.10.2004 and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and the co-accused, showing co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera as absconder, under Sections 365, 366 and 376 read with 34 of the I.P.C. 3. Appellant took the plea of denial and alleged false implication. 4. In order to substantiate the charge seventeen witnesses were examined apart from placing reliance upon the documents marked Exts.1 to 14. P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 6, 16 and 17 have already been introduced. P.W.7 and 13 are doctors who medically examined the appellant and the victim respectively. P.Ws.2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 were witnesses to seizures. P.W. 12 happens to be a post-occurrence witness also. Two defence witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellant. 5. Learned trial Court relying solely upon the evidence of victim-P.W.1, stated to have been corroborated by her parents P.Ws.4 and 5 and post-occurrence witnesses P.Ws.6 and 12, con¬victed and sentenced the appellant, as stated supra. 6. P.W. 12 happens to be a post-occurrence witness also. Two defence witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the appellant. 5. Learned trial Court relying solely upon the evidence of victim-P.W.1, stated to have been corroborated by her parents P.Ws.4 and 5 and post-occurrence witnesses P.Ws.6 and 12, con¬victed and sentenced the appellant, as stated supra. 6. In assailing the impugned judgment, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite allegation of forcible sexual intercourse against her will, medical evidence adduced by the prosecution does not reveal any injury on the victim. Night gown, which the victim is stated to have been wear¬ing in the night of occurrence, was seized by police but chemical examination report thereof has not been produced in Court to indicate that the same contained any incriminating stain. Evi¬dence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6 and 12 is hearsay. The appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of P.W.4. In the backdrop of such submissions, referring to the evidence on record, it was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities appearing in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 12 clearly go to show that victim-P.W.1 is not a reliable witness. It was further argued that there is absolutely no evi¬dence on record to suggest that P.W.1 was subjected to forcible intercourse and the victim girl being admittedly, an adult, in case sexual intercourse between the appellant and victim is believed, the possibility of the victim being a consenting party to sexual intercourse with the appellant can not be ruled out. It was further argued that circumstances surrounding upon the al¬leged occurrence also indicate that the victim girl and her parents, with the help of their co-villagers, made an attempt to compel the appellant to marry the victim and such attempt having failed, the appellant was implicated in the case on concocted allegations. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala : AIR 2000 Supreme Court and this Court in Bijaya Kumar Christian v. State of Orissa : 58 (1984) CLT 402 and Niranjan alias Tima Jena and seven others v. State of Orissa : 2000 (II) OLR 68. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, argued that the trial Court having accepted the testi¬mony of victim girl to be reliable and trustworthy, no corrobora¬tion is required to sustain the conviction recorded against the appellant. 8. Admittedly, medical evidence on record does not help the prosecution in any manner. P.W.13 medically examined the victim-P.W.1 on 14.11.2003. Victim’s hymen had old tear and vaginal cavity admitted two fingers. Examination of vaginal swab revealed absence of spermatozoa, R.B.C. and Gonococci. Physical, dental and radiological examination revealed the age of the victim to be 20 +2. There was no mark of any injury on the body surface. Such finding is in direct conflict with the assertion made by P.W.1 in course of her cross-examination that she had pain while being raped and that she had also suffered an injury on her right hand near the wrist. It was categorically deposed by P.W.13, upon reference to her report Ext.7, that she did not find any sign of recent sexual intercourse on the victim. The victim-P.W.1 did not depose regarding seizure of any of her wearing apparels. In course of cross-examination, she stated to have been wearing a night gown, an undergarment (chadi) and a bra. It was also stated that she did not collect the chadi which was removed and torn by the appellant before he committed rape. Neither P.W.16 nor P.W.17 stated that he visited the spot where the victim was raped. Rather, in their cross-examination, both of them lamely admitted that the spot house was closed. P.Ws.9 and 12 testified regarding seizure of victim’s night gown/nightie. However, prosecution has led no evidence to indicate that the night gown contained any incriminating stain. There is no evi¬dence regarding seizure of chadi. Therefore, there is no circum¬stantial corroboration to the direct evidence of P.W.1 and hear¬say evidence of her parents as well as P.Ws. 6 and 12. 9. In Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo (supra) it has been pointed that if there had been any forcible sexual intercourse, the victim must have made some strong resistance being a grown up lady and in the process, some injuries would have been found on the vagina/private parts of the body or some other parts indicative of any such use of force and it would be too much to assume that there would have been no injuries whatsoever on the body, on this account. In Bijaya Kumar Christian (supra) absence of injury on the victim’s body despite allegation of forcible sexual intercourse led this Court to observe that it cannot be ruled out that the victim girl was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse and to hold that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. In Niranjan alias Tima Jena and seven others (supra) the circumstances of the absence of any injury on the victim’s body, of any sign of recent sexual intercourse on her and also of any stain of semen in the wearing apparels of the victim and appellant were found by this Court to be telling upon the veracity of the allegation of forcible rape made by the prosecutrix. Though injury on the body is not always must or sine qua non to prove a charge of rape, absence of injury on a victim assumes importance in the present case in view of categorical assertion by P.W.1 to the effect that she had sustained injury on her right hand near the wrist. 10. P.W.1 the victim stated that she was kidnapped by the appellant and co-accused when she was waiting in front of their house for arrival of immersion procession. However, her father the informant P.W.4 testified that on his enquiry, the victim girl P.W.1 told that after witnessing the immersion while she was about to enter the house, the appellant and co-accused gagged her mouth and forcibly kidnapped her. Such contradiction is significant in view of the fact that admittedly victim’s house is surrounded by other houses but it is asserted by P.W.1 that none was present when she was kidnapped from in front of their house. It is also pertinent to note that P.W.1 alleged that she was lifted to a little distance before being taken to the spot house in a motor-cycle. According to P.W.1, she was kidnapped at about 7 P.M. in the evening. P.W.4 testified that he was told by P.W.5 that the victim was missing, when he returned home at about 8.00 P.M. in the evening. Victim’s mother P.W.5 stated that P.W.4 returned home at about 10.00 P.M. upon which she apprised him that the victim was missing. 11. P.W.1 testified that she was taken to the house of co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera which consisted of only one room. Victim’s mother P.W.5 stated that P.W.4 returned home at about 10.00 P.M. upon which she apprised him that the victim was missing. 11. P.W.1 testified that she was taken to the house of co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera which consisted of only one room. Co-accused locked the room from outside and she was left with the appellant alone. Thereafter, appellant undressed her by tearing the chadi and raped her against her wishes. After 10/15 minutes co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera opened the door and both the accused persons left the place by locking the door from outside. Although P.W.1 raised hullah, nothing was audible to outside as an audio system was blown at its full volume in the adjacent house. P.W.1 also alleged that after one hour the appel¬lant once again raped her for the second time and went away by keeping the door open. P.W.1 did not give any explanation as to what prevented her from escaping even though the door was left open. P.W.1 testified that thereafter co-accused Bina @ Manoran¬jan Behera came and asked her to go to her house, but she insist¬ed for the presence of appellant. According to her, co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera remained in the same room throughout the night. Early in the morning he called the appellant’s mother. As against such testimony of P.W.1, P.W.4 stated in his cross-examination that the house in which the victim was confined con¬sisted of two rooms. The tenor of the F.I.R. also reveals that the spot house had more than one room as it has been mentioned therein that the sound system was being played in another room in the spot house. Though the investigating officers did not visit the spot house, evidence of P.Ws.16 and 17 as well as spot map Ext.10 prepared by P.W.16 indicate that the alleged spot house had two rooms. It has been categorically testified by P.W.16 that there was no electricity connection in the alleged spot house. In such circumstances, the assertion of P.W.1 that her alarm was drowned by sound of audio system which was blowing at high volume in the adjacent room is rendered unworthy of credence. 12. It has been categorically testified by P.W.16 that there was no electricity connection in the alleged spot house. In such circumstances, the assertion of P.W.1 that her alarm was drowned by sound of audio system which was blowing at high volume in the adjacent room is rendered unworthy of credence. 12. Though P.W.1 alleged that the appellant raped her twice in the night of occurrence, F.I.R. Ext.3, lodged on the basis of victim’s version, shows that the victim complained before P.W.4 and others that the appellant committed rape on her once only. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that the victim was brought to and confined in the spot house by the appellant and co-accused. At about mid night the appellant came and raped her and, thereafter, locked the house and left. It is pertinent to note that P.W.4 contradicted his own version contained in the F.I.R. by testify¬ing in Court that the victim told before him that the appellant ravished her twice. The victim’s mother P.W.5 as well as P.W.6 did not testify that the victim complained to have been raped twice by the appellant. Rather, evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 go to show that the victim alleged to have been raped by the appellant once only. 13. Accordingly to P.W.1, she left the spot house along with appellant’s mother when she told her to come with her to the appellant’s house and on the way she abandoned her in front of the victim’s house. At that time, her parents who were in search of her came to their house. The Sarpanch P.W.6 was also present there alongwith some co-villagers. Neither P.W.4 nor P.W.5 say that either P.W.6 or any other co-villager was present when P.W.1 returned home and narrated regarding the occurrence before them. P.W.4 alleged that when he along with P.W.5 were sitting in the verandah in front of their house, he saw the appellant’s mother being accompanied by the victim came near their house and pushed the victim and went away. However, P.W.5 stated that when she alongwith her husband had gone in search of the victim, in their absence the victim came to the house. In her cross-examination, P.W.5 categorically stated that by the time they returned to the house after the search in the morning, she found the victim sitting in the verandah of their house. 14. However, P.W.5 stated that when she alongwith her husband had gone in search of the victim, in their absence the victim came to the house. In her cross-examination, P.W.5 categorically stated that by the time they returned to the house after the search in the morning, she found the victim sitting in the verandah of their house. 14. It appears that statement of victim-P.W.1 recorded in response to P.W.16’s prayer under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur under Ext.12 is also not consistent with P.W.1’s testimony in Court. In her previous statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. the victim stated that she was kid¬napped after she and her sister saw the immersion procession. In Ext.12, the victim did not name co-accused Bina @ Manoranjan Behera to have taken any role in her kidnapping. Also, she alleged in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that the appel¬lant raped her once only. She further alleged before the Magis¬trate that the appellant threatened that in case she disclosed regarding the occurrence, he would kill her brother and father. P.W.1 did not testify regarding any threat while deposing in Court. 15. P.W.6, the Sarpanch stated that the victim complained before her to have been raped by the appellant. However, this witness stated in her cross-examination that she had not stated anything before the police. She also stated in her cross-examination that she had no direct knowledge of the alleged incident except what she heard about it from the victim’s father. P.W.6 testified in Court that the victim complained before her that her family members were not allowing her to go into her house which circumstance was not deposed to by either the victim or her parents. 16. Such being the state and nature of evidence, there is no scope to hold that P.W.1 is a reliable witness on whose uncorroborated testimony conviction of the appellant for commis¬sion of offences under Sections 365 and 366 of the I.P.C. for kidnapping and under Section 376 of the I.P.C. for rape can be based. Prosecution is found to have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offences, as alleged. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court is found to be not sustainable and the impugned judgment is found to be liable to be set aside. 17. Prosecution is found to have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offences, as alleged. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court is found to be not sustainable and the impugned judgment is found to be liable to be set aside. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed in S.T. Case No.317 of 2005 by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. It was stated that the appellant is in custody. If that be so, he be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in any other case. Appeal allowed.