JUDGMENT : B.P. Ray, J. - The Appellants, namely, Dibakar Murmu, Badei Bewa, Hare Majhi, Durjan Majhi and Fagu Murmu have been convicted under Sections 427 and 455, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and 3 years each respectively on each count. Appellants Hare Majhi and Durjan Majhi have also been convicted u/s 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under R.I. for 10 years each. Assailing the. order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahurbhanj, Baripada, the Appellants have preferred this appeal. It is pertinent to mention here that the convict Fagu Murmu has expired during pendency of the appeal and accordingly, the case is abated as against him vide order No. 9 dated 20.2.1997. 2. The prosecution case as revealed from the F.I.R. is that the informant Sumitra Dei (P. W. 4) was in occupation of her. father's house at village Bahalda since about 14 years. On 6.6.1993, accused Dibakar Murmu of village Nekhalpal with Bdei Bewa, Fagu Murmu ' Majhi, Samarai Majhi, Lulu Majhi and some Ors. came and ploughed the informant's share of lands with a tractor. According to the informant, (P. W. 4), all of them being armed with weapons searched for her (Sumitra's) husband to kill. On the next day also the aforesaid accused persons along with some other villagers of Bahalda being armed with deadly weapons came to the informant's house and searched for her husband to kill. Accused Samarati Mjhi tied the informant-Sumitra with a pole and accused Raghu Murmu guarded her. Thereafter, they drove her sisters Piti & Debaki and pulled down the entire structure of the house and took away all the paddy, rice including cash of Rs. 350/-. In the meanwhile, informant's daughter-Bhanumati reached there. Being instigated by accused Dibakar, other accused persons chased her towards the canal. When some of the villagers reached there, accused persons left the place with the broken house building materials along with some green trees lading in a tractor. Thereafter, Bhanumati came and narrated before her mother that she was raped by accused Samarai Majhi, Fagu Murmu and Hare Majhi and they also took away Rs. 2000/- and a saree from her. When some of the villagers reached there, accused persons left the place with the broken house building materials along with some green trees lading in a tractor. Thereafter, Bhanumati came and narrated before her mother that she was raped by accused Samarai Majhi, Fagu Murmu and Hare Majhi and they also took away Rs. 2000/- and a saree from her. The informant reported the incident in writing at Khunta P.S., which gave rise to P. S. Case No. 32 of 1993, where after, on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 395/376(2)(g)/447/ 455/427 I.P.C. against the accused persons. 3. The plea of all the accused persons is denial of alleged occurrence except the accused Dibakar, Badei, Hare and Samarai, who have admitted their presence at the village and also to have ploughed the lands on 6.6.1993 by a hired tractor. Accused Badei claimed herself to be in possession of the said land through out. Accused Dibakar, Hare and Samarai have stated to have been falsely implicated as they help the accused Badei. 4. Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in all of whom P.W. 4-Sumitra Dei ' Soren and P.W. 8 Kuanr Soren are the wife and husband respectively. P.Ws. 1, 2 6 & 9 are the villagers, who claimed to have seen the occurrence of forcible ploughing and damage to the house. P.W. 3 is a post occurrence as well as seizure witness. P.W. 7 is the daughter of P.W. 4, who has been sexually assaulted by the Appellant Nos. 3 & 4. P.W. 5 is the Medical Officer, who examined the victim P.W. 7. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. None has been examined by the defence. 5. As regards conviction of the Appellants - Hare Majhi and Durjan Majhi u/s 376(2)(g), I.P.C. is concerned, the same is based on sole testimony of the victim (P.W. 7). The Medical Officer (P.W. 5), who has examined the victim on 9.6.1993, has categorically stated that he did not find any sign of rape or any injury on her private part. There is no quarrel over the proposition of law that the conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Seeking corroboration may be of prudence, but certainly not the requirement of law. In the instant case, the medical evidence does not show any sign of rape. There is no quarrel over the proposition of law that the conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Seeking corroboration may be of prudence, but certainly not the requirement of law. In the instant case, the medical evidence does not show any sign of rape. With the negative medical evidence, it is to be seen whether the evidence of the prosecutrix in this regard inspires confidence and the same can be acted upon. The occurrence is alleged to have been taken place on 6.6.1993. F.I.R. has been lodged on 8.6.1993. As per the recital in the F.I.R., on 6.6.1993, the accused persons being. armed with deadly weapons came over the land of P.Ws. 4 & 8 and started ploughing forcibly. On the next day at 4.00 P.M. the accused persons again came to their house and caused damage to the same. The accused persons tied P.W. 4 to a pole and removed the belongings. At that time, P.W. 7 arrived there. Seeing her, the accused persons chased her. It is alleged that accused, Hara. Fagu and Durjan sexually assaulted her in the nearby canal. The evidence of P.W. 7 is that on a Monday, she reached the house of her father at 5.00 P.M. and found that the accused persons were pulling down the thatch. She also found that her mother was tied to a pole. While she was going back, the accused Hara. Fagu and Durjan chased her and took her inside the canal and committed rape. In order to test the vefacity of the evidence of this witness, the evidence of other witnesses need to be scrutinized. P.W. 1 has not stated anything regarding chasing P.W. 7 and commission of alleged rape. P.W. 2 has deposed about the forcible ploughing of the land of the informant by the accused persons. He has further deposed that the accused persons tied P.W. 4 with a pole, caused damage to the house, took away her belongings and fled away from the spot. The evidence of this witness reveals that he was all through present i.e. from arrival of the accused persons in the house of P.W. 4 till their departure after removing the house hold articles. Significantly his evidence does not disclose about the arrival of P.W. 7 on the spot and the alleged chasing by the accused persons. The evidence of this witness reveals that he was all through present i.e. from arrival of the accused persons in the house of P.W. 4 till their departure after removing the house hold articles. Significantly his evidence does not disclose about the arrival of P.W. 7 on the spot and the alleged chasing by the accused persons. P.W. 3 is a close relation of the informant and he does not whisper a word about the occurrence. P.W. 4, who is the informant has deposed that on a Sunday morning, the Appellants along with other accused, persons forcibly ploughed their land. On the next day, the accused-Durjan tied her with a pole; accused Fagu guarded her holding bow and arrow. Thereafter, the accused persons entered into the house and brought out the paddy, rice and cash of Rs. 350/. They pulled down the thatch and dismantled the roof. At that time, P.W. 7, the victim came there and seeing her, the accused persons i. e. Durjan, Fagu, Hare, Lulu and Chapat Majhi chased her. Sometime thereafter the villagers arrived and the accused persons left the place with the articles removed from her house. Her daughter (P.W. 7) came later and told that she was raped by Durjan, Fagu and Hare. The evidence of P.W. 4 needs to be scanned to ascertain whether the accused persons had chased her daughter and subsequently raped her. P.W. 4 in her evidence has deposed that accused Fagu was guarding her from beginning to the end while she was being tied. She has also categorically stated that accused Hare, Dibakar, Badei, Chapta and Lulu were there till arrival of the other villagers. This part of the evidence belies the case of the prosecution that P.W. 7 was chased by the accused Fagu, Hare and Ors. . If the accused Fagu was guarding her and the accused Hare and Ors. were chasing P.W. 7, then the allegation of committing rape gets falsified. P.W. 4 in her cross-examination has deposed that she was tied in the inner courtyard of her house wherefrom the village road was not visible. The evidence of P.W. 7 shows that she has not entered into the house. Here the question arises, if P.W. 4 was tied inside the courtyard of the house and P.W. 7 the victim has not entered inside the premises, then how could P.W. 4 see the alleged chasing? The evidence of P.W. 7 shows that she has not entered into the house. Here the question arises, if P.W. 4 was tied inside the courtyard of the house and P.W. 7 the victim has not entered inside the premises, then how could P.W. 4 see the alleged chasing? Since P.W. 7 has not gone inside and the village road was not visible to P.W. 4, the theory of chasing put forth by the prosecution is nothing but a myth. 6. P.W. 6 who is a close relation of the informant, had been to the house of P.W. 4 in the afternoon and found that she was tied with a pole and accused Fagu was guarding her. This witness reached at the spot just at the beginning of the occurrence; therefore she could see the tying of the informant with the pole and breaking of her house. Strangely, this witness does not breath a single word about the arrival of P.W. 7-the victim at the scene of occurrence and the alleged chasing by the accused persons. P.W. 7 is the victim herself. She has deposed that at about 5.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence she had been to her father's house. On reaching there, she found that the accused persons were pulling down the thatch and were taking away paddy etc. She also found that her mother (P.W. 4) was tied to a pole. She did not enter into the house and was going back, at that time the accused persons chased her upto canal. The accused Durjan, Fagu and Hare committed rape on her there. This witness resides in her in-law's house at Chadada and not a resident of the village where the occurrence had taken place. Therefore, she is a chance witness. Her present at the relevant time is not under the normal circumstance. Since this witness has not entered into the house of P.W. 4, she saw P.W. 4 in lying condition in the inner courtyard is not believable. P.W. 7 in her deposition has stated that after the alleged rape she went to the house of Radhamohan (P.W. 3) with the company of Gora Singh. She has further stated that while the accused Fagu was taking away her saree and cash, which she was carrying in her bag, at that time Gora Singh approached near the place and the accused persons left the place. She has further stated that while the accused Fagu was taking away her saree and cash, which she was carrying in her bag, at that time Gora Singh approached near the place and the accused persons left the place. P.W. 3 before whom the victim claimed to have narrated the incident did not whisper a word in this regard. His evidence is completely silent about the chasing and commission of rape by the accused persons. Gora Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, who is the vital witness and no explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution, which is a telling circumstance against its case. P.W. 9 stated in his evidence that he arrived in the house of the informant and found the accused persons breaking her house. Seeing this he went to the house of Radhamohan (P.W. 3). On return they saw the informant was tied with a pole and the accused persons were carrying paddy etc. After departure of the accused persons, the informant was freed. As per the evidence of this witness, he was present till the accused persons left the place. If he could see breaking of house, removal of belongings and was there till the accused persons departed from the place of occurrence, in all probability he could have seen the arrival of the victim (P.W. 7) as well as the incident of chasing her by the accused up to the canal. Curiously, this witness is silent on this score. P.W. 6 though he has deposed in support of the prosecution, but his evidence is hearsay as he had heard from P.W. 7 about the commission of rape. 7. From the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, it is found that none of them has seen the victim coming to the spot and the accused person's chasing her up to the canal. Witnesses are all villagers of the informant, therefore, the presence of her daughter (P.W. 7) would not have gone unnoticed. The incident is alleged to have taken place at 5.00 P.M. in the summer (6.6.1993). By that time the sun had not set down. Many persons had gathered at the place of occurrence. Three persoiis, committing rape about 20/40 cubits apart from the house of the informant, would not have been escaped from the notice of the people present near the house of the informant. By that time the sun had not set down. Many persons had gathered at the place of occurrence. Three persoiis, committing rape about 20/40 cubits apart from the house of the informant, would not have been escaped from the notice of the people present near the house of the informant. If arrival of the victim and chasing by the accused persons are found unreliable, the allegation of commission of rape which was in the subsequent sequence also appears to be doubtful. Viewing from any angle the evidence of the victim does not appear to be wholly reliable. It also does not get any circumstantial corroboration. In absence of any evidence of any corroboration, it may not be prudent to accept the version of the victim. 8. Much stress has been given on the report of the chemical examination and reports of serologist (Exts. 27 & 28) in respect of examination of vaginal swab of the victim which shows the trace of blood and semen. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 6/7.6.1993. According to the evidence of P.W. 7, her period of menstruation started from the said night i.e. 7.6.1993. The witness has been examined on 9.6.1993 and on that day vaginal swab was collected. When the vagina swab was collected two days after the alleged rape and the victim was attending the calls of nature and was doing the routine activities as usual in such circumstances by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the semen was sticking to her vagina even after such long lapse of time. There is no evidence that there was ejaculation in course of the alleged rape. Therefore, the so-called report and opinion of the chemical examination hardly inspire confidence. Sample of semen was also collected from the accused persons. There is no evidence that the sample semen tallied with which was collected from the victim. In absence of such finding no reasonable inference can be drawn that the same was of the accused persons. 9. When the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W. 7) is not only inconsistent to the testimony of other witnesses, but to the medical evidence as well, it would not be safe to record an order of conviction (See the decision reported in Lalliram and Another Vs. State of M.P.. False charge of rape is not uncommon (see the decision reported in Radhu Vs. State of M.P.. False charge of rape is not uncommon (see the decision reported in Radhu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . 10. Barring the sole oral testimony of the prosecutrix, there is no other evidence worth the name which can be utilized against the Appellants. On the contrary, the medical evidence negatives the allegation of rape. Viewing from any prospective, the evidence on record do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Appellants are guilty of the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g), I.P.C. Prosecution having failed to bring home the charge against the Appellants, therefore, the Appellants are entitled to get the benefit of acquittal from the charges. 11. As regards the conviction under Sections 427/455, I.P.C. for causing mischief and house trespass, all the witnesses unequivocally deposed that the accused persons forcibly entered inside the house of the informant, tied her, pulled down the thatch and removed the belongings. The evidence in this regard are found reliable, therefore, the conviction on this score cannot be interfered with. 12. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed u/s 376(2)(g) I.P.C. is hereby set aside, but conviction and sentence passed under Sections 427 and 455, I.P.C. against the Appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S. T. Case No. 183/1993 is confirmed. The Appellants be set at liberty forthwith if their detention is not required in any other case. The appeal is allowed in part.