JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - The Appellant having been convicted under Sections 376 and 451 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default to undergo further period of R.I. for two years, u/s 376 of the I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/ -, in default to undergo further period of R.I. for one year, u/s 451 of the I.P.C., by judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. Case No. 90/11 of 2001, has preferred this appeal. 2. The victim-informant P.W.1 and the Appellant are co-villagers. Their houses are closely situated intervened by a Bari. The victim resides with her widow mother, elder sister P.W.2, elder brother P.W.3 and P.W.3's wife P.W.7. The alleged occurrence took place on 03.08.2000 at about 11.00 A.M. when P.W.1 was in her house alone. P.Ws.2, 3 and victim's mother had left home in the morning to work in a stone quarry. Soon before the alleged occurrence P.W.7 had also gone to a nearby pond alongwith her children to take bath. It is alleged that when P.W.1 was drying wet clothes in the Courtyard, the Appellant entered inside the house, closed the front door from inside and lifted P.W.1 to the inner verandah of the house. He made her to lie down on the ground and forcibly committed sexual intercourse. When P.W.1 resisted the Appellant threatened to kill her. After committing rape the Appellant left the victim's house. On P.W.7's return from pond, P.W.1 disclosed the occurrence to her. She also told regarding the occurrence to P.Ws.2 and 3 as well as her mother when they returned home in the evening. At about 9.00 P.M., P.W.1 went to the Gandhi Chhak Police Out Post under Brajrajnagar Police Station and orally narrated the occurrence to P.W.12 the A.S.I. of Police. P.W.12 reduced the oral report into writing made Station Diary Entry bearing S.D.E. No. 34 dated 03.08.2000 took up preliminary investigation and sent the report Ext.1 to Brajrajnagar Police Station for registration. P.W.12 examined the victim girl as well P.Ws.1, 3 and P.W.1's mother and also seized P.W.1's salwar frock and other wearing apparels, i.e., chadi and 'semij'. P.W.12 reduced the oral report into writing made Station Diary Entry bearing S.D.E. No. 34 dated 03.08.2000 took up preliminary investigation and sent the report Ext.1 to Brajrajnagar Police Station for registration. P.W.12 examined the victim girl as well P.Ws.1, 3 and P.W.1's mother and also seized P.W.1's salwar frock and other wearing apparels, i.e., chadi and 'semij'. At Brajrajnagar Police Station in the absence of inspector-ln-Charge, P.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ext.1 at. 1.00 P.M., registered the case. He took over charge of investigation of the case from P.W.12. In course of investigation, other witnesses were examined and seizures were effected. Victim and Appellant were medically examined by doctors P.Ws.5 and 6 respectively. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination. P.W.13 the I.I.C. Case of Brajrajnagar Police Station took over charge of investigation from P.W.11 on 24.11.2000 and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the Appellant under Sections 376 and 448 of the I.P.C. Considering the materials on record, charge was framed for commission of offence under Sections 451 and 376 of the I.P.C. 3. Defence plea was one of denial and false implication due to land dispute between the families of Appellant and victim. 4. In order to substantiate the charge prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and also, relied upon documents marked Exts.1 to 9. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13 already been introduced. P.Ws.4 and 10 are co-villagers of the victim and Appellant. P.W.8's a police constable who accompanied victim and Appellant to the hospital for medical examination. P.W.9 was examined as a seizure witness. Two co-villagers D.Ws.1 and 2 of the victim and Appellant were examined and document marked Exhibit-'A' was relied upon by the Appellant. Placing reliance on evidence of victim P.W.1 stated to have been corroborated by post-occurrence witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 10 the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the Appellant as stated supra. 5. In assailing the impugned judgment and order it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that none of the circumstances including medical evidence supports the testimony of the victim girl to have been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the Appellant. On the basis of such submission, it was contended that in view of the contradictions, in consistencies and infirmities appearing in the evidence of victim. On the basis of such submission, it was contended that in view of the contradictions, in consistencies and infirmities appearing in the evidence of victim. P.W.1, there is no scope to hold that Her sole testimony is capable at being relied upon as the basis to sustain conviction in any criminal trial. It was further argued that not only the evidence of P.W.1 gets no corroboration from any other sources but also other materials on record including the medical evidence falsify her assertion in view of which. P.W.1 cannot be held to be a truthful or reliable witness. Evidence available from D.Ws.1 and 2 regarding existence of inimical relationship between the families of victim and Appellant gets corroboration from Exhibit- 'A' the land transfer agreement. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment and order are not sustainable. Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported and defended the impugned judgment; and order. 6. At the very outset it may be pointed out that though the victim P.W.1. described herself to be aged 15 years while deposing in Court in the F.I.R. she has given her age as 19 years. P.W.5 the doctor who medically examined P.W.1 testified on the basis of ossification test upon X-ray examination of the victim that the victim had completed age of 19 years when she was examined on 4.8.2000. Thus disclosure of age to be 15 years in the Court indicates the victim's tendency of not sticking to truth. 7. Be that as it may it is obvious that the victim as more than 19 years old during the period of the alleged occurrence. Admittedty, medical evidence on record does not help the prosecution in any manner. P.W.5 testified that he found no external injury on P.W.1 not did he notice any injury or any recent sign of sexual intercourse upon examination off P.W.1's genetalia. Hymen admitted two fingers. Pathological examination of the victim's vaginal swab showed no presence of spermatozoa. He did not notice any foreign material on victim's body. In course of cross-examination P.W.5 further deposed that he did not notice any bleeding from vagina or any injury on the hands, wrist joints and thigh it was also admitted by P.W.5 that admissibility of two fingers in the hymen suggested that victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. He did not notice any foreign material on victim's body. In course of cross-examination P.W.5 further deposed that he did not notice any bleeding from vagina or any injury on the hands, wrist joints and thigh it was also admitted by P.W.5 that admissibility of two fingers in the hymen suggested that victim was habituated to sexual intercourse. Such findings are in direct conflict with the assertion made by P.W.1 in course of cross-examination that she had sustained bleeding because of forcible act by accused and that she had sustained injuries in and around her writ joints as well as on her thighs which she had shown to the doctor. P.W.1 also stated that when the Appellant raped her she scratched his face with her finger nails causing bleeding injuries. Such assertion also is falsified by the evidence of P.W.6 the doctor who examined the Appellant on 4.8.2000. P.W.6 categorically testified that he did not find any injury on the person or on the private part of the Appellant nor did he notice any recent sign of sexual intercourse upon his medical examination. In course of cross-examination it was also stated by P.W.6 that he did not find any scratch on the Appellant's face or body. P.W.1 deposed that she was putting on a 'Maxi' which is called 'Salwar' in village language. She was not putting on 'Chadi' She also testified that while she was being ravished by the Appellant, her co-villager P.W.4 had come to their house. She could recognize his voice when he called her but she could not tell him anything out of shame. In course of cross-examination, the victim stated also that when the Appellant ravished her, her 'Maxi' got torn towards lower portion totally and mat she was wearing that 'Maxi' when she went to the Gandhichhak Outpost. She deposed that her wearing apparels were seized in the hospital after her medical examination. She also testified that her 'Salwar frock' which she was wearing at the time of the incident was stationed with blood at the back; that the floor was stained with blood, that her bangles got broken and that the broken bangles were lying scattered at the spot. She categorically deposed that police had seized the broken bangles. Such assertions of the victim get no support from any quarter. She categorically deposed that police had seized the broken bangles. Such assertions of the victim get no support from any quarter. P.Ws.11 and 12 contradicted P.W.1 by deposing that wearing apparels of the victim as well as the Appellant were seized before sending them for medical examination. In course of cross-examination P.W.11 categorically deposed that he did not notice that 'Salwar frock' of the victim seized by him was torn. P.W.11 stated to have visited the spot on 3.8.2000. He deposed in course of cross-examination that at the time of spot visit he did not find any broken glass bangles. He also did not find any nail mark or scratch on the face of the Appellant nor did he mark any swelling on the victim's wrist. P.W.12, the A.S.I. of Police of Gandhichak also testified that he did not mark any injury, on the victim's wrist on either side. P.W.11 did not depose regarding presence of any blood or semen stain at the spot. The 'Maxi' or 'Salwar frock' which P.W.1 is stated to have been wearing at the time of occurrence has not been produced in Court. Ext.9, chemical examination report, received from SFSL reveals that semen stain was not detected in any of the wearing apparels of either victim or the Appellant or in the victim's vaginal fluid. The chemical examination report also does not indicate detection of any blood stain or any tearing on the victim's frock. Thus there is absolutely no corroboration to the direct evidence of P.W.1 or hearsay evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 7 and 10. 8. Though P.Ws.1 and 12 testified that P.W.12 scribed the F.I.R. Ext.1, P.W.2 victim's sister testified that Gountia had prepared a report to be lodged at the police station and on that report P.W.1's signature was obtained. P.W.2 further deposed that when she returned home from work P.W.1 was wearing 'Punjabi' and not 'Salwar'. She had put on a 'Chadi' also. P.W.2 testified that 'on the night of occurrence' her mother as well as P.W.1 and P.W.3 were in the Police Station. They returned home the next evening only. She deposed that on 4.8.2000 around 7 A.M. P.W.3 came to the house and took victim's clothings. Such assertion of P.W.2 contradicts the evidence of P.W.12 to have seized P.W.1's wearing apparels on the date of occurrence. They returned home the next evening only. She deposed that on 4.8.2000 around 7 A.M. P.W.3 came to the house and took victim's clothings. Such assertion of P.W.2 contradicts the evidence of P.W.12 to have seized P.W.1's wearing apparels on the date of occurrence. P.W.2 categorically deposed that at about 4 to 5 P.M. on 4.8.2000 police had come for investigation to their house and did not find any blood stain or semen stain in the floor or any broken bangles at the spot. This witness further testified that P.W.1 had not sustained any bleeding injury on private part or any of the wrist joints. P.W.3 also deposed that F.I.R. was not written by his mother by somebody of their village before he returned from work. They lodged that written report at the Gandhichhak Outpost. This witness also stated that they returned home from the Police Station the following day and that on the following day only he took wearing apparels of the victim to the Police Station as police wanted to seize the frock which P.W.1 had put on at the time of occurrence. He deposed to have not seen any mark of injury on P.W.1 or any tearing on her cloth. Despite such assertions made by P.Ws.2 and 3, victim's sister-in-law P.W.7 contradicted them by stating that she had seen blood stain on the floor of the verandah where P.W.1 had been raped and she also found scratch marks on the wrist joints of the victim. P.W.4, who is stated to have gone to the victim's house when she was being ravished, did not utter a word which would incriminate the Appellant in any manner. It has been brought out in evidence that P.W.1 had not stated in course of her examination by Investigating Officer P.W.12 that the Appellant threatened to kill her while committing rape or that the victim raised shout at the time of occurrence but none came to her rescue, though P.W.1 made such assertions in Court. 9. It has been brought out in evidence that P.W.1 had not stated in course of her examination by Investigating Officer P.W.12 that the Appellant threatened to kill her while committing rape or that the victim raised shout at the time of occurrence but none came to her rescue, though P.W.1 made such assertions in Court. 9. In Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala AIR 2000 SC 1608 , it has been pointed out 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 Vs. State of Orissa 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 Vs. State of Orissa, 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 victim or accused is not always a must or sine qua non to prove a charge of rape, absence of injury on the victim and the Appellant assumes importance in the present case in view of categorical assertions by P.W.1 to the effect that she had sustained injuries on her thighs and wrist, and had caused scratch injuries on Appellant's face. Her veracity as a truthful witness also stands shaken due to absence of any support to her evidence that her bangles got broken, and her wearing apparel as well as spot were stained with blood or semen in course of the alleged forcible sexual intercourse. The infirmities render the evidence of the prosecutrix too unsafe a basis to sustain the. Her veracity as a truthful witness also stands shaken due to absence of any support to her evidence that her bangles got broken, and her wearing apparel as well as spot were stained with blood or semen in course of the alleged forcible sexual intercourse. The infirmities render the evidence of the prosecutrix too unsafe a basis to sustain the. charge against the Appellant. Defence evidence of the two co-villagers D.Ws.1 and 2 indicating existence of prior dispute in connection with land transferred under Exhibit-'A' by P.W.1 's grand father to Appellant's father, therefore, does not improbabilise the plea of false implication. Prosecution is found to have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant committed the offences as alleged. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed in ST. Case No. 90/11 of 2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda are set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge 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. Final Result : Allowed