JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. - This revision arises out of appellate judgment passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1998 confirming the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 376, I.P.C. and consequent sentence recorded there under sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand), in default to suffer further R.I. for six months. 2. Both Petitioner and the victim P.W.8 are residents of village Jaymangal under Narginghpur Police Station. The victim (P.W.8) is a married lady. The occurrence happened at 7.00 a.m. on 23.09.1996. The victim (P.W.8) before the aforesaid time of occurrence went to weed the sugarcane field. She was alone there engaged in so weeding the sugarcane field. The present Petitioner came there. He forcibly caught hold of the victim, pressed her neck, pinned her down on the ground and committed rape on her. The victim (P.W.8) shouted. One Sebati Dei ' Nayak (P.W.3), an old lady was engaged in harvesting 'sesame' ('rasi') crop in a nearby field. She came near the spot and questioned the present Petitioner as to what he is doing. The Petitioner fled away leaving the victim there. The victim narrated the incident before Sebati Dei (P.W.3). Her husband (P.W.2), husband's elder brother (P.W.6), husband's cousin brother (not examined) along with one Gaja Panda (not examined) also rushed to the spot hearing the victim's shout/cry and they brought her (victim) to Narsinghpur Police Station. At the P.S. victim's husband (P.W.2) got the report scribed by one Anju Behera (not examined) and lodged the F.I.R. P.W.9 took up the investigation. In course of the investigation he got the victim examined medically on the same day by the Medical Officer (P.W.1), examined the witnesses, made the incriminating seizures and after substantial progress in the investigation, handed over charge of investigation to P.W.5, who only submitted the charge-sheet. 3. Prosecution examined nine witnesses to bring home the guilt to the Petitioner. The defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication owing to continuous litigations between the Petitioner and his cousin brothers Nidhi, Sada and Bhagi, who have used the victim (P.W.8) to falsely implicate him. The Petitioner has examined himself as D.W.1. 4. 3. Prosecution examined nine witnesses to bring home the guilt to the Petitioner. The defence plea is one of complete denial and false implication owing to continuous litigations between the Petitioner and his cousin brothers Nidhi, Sada and Bhagi, who have used the victim (P.W.8) to falsely implicate him. The Petitioner has examined himself as D.W.1. 4. Learned trial court returned the finding of guilt against the Petitioner on the basis of evidence of the victim (P.W.8) and the corroborative evidence of P. Ws.2, 3 and 1. In the appeal preferred by the Petitioner the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was pressed in impugning the trial court's judgment. Learned appellate court however, eschewed the contentions raised by the Petitioner there and dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, with all the vehemence at his command, submits that the findings arrived at by both the courts below is perverse, inasmuch as learned courts below have reached their conclusion regarding guilt of the Petitioner on the basis of evidence at its face value and not on the bssis of the proper appreciation of such evidence. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State on the other hand supports the impugned judgments. 6. Admittedly, for arriving at the conclusion regarding guilt of the Petitioner, learned courts below have solely relied on the evidence of P.W.8 (victim) and the so called corroborative evidence of P.W.3 (Sebati Dei). Admittedly the victim (P.W.8) is a married lady. It is well settled in law that corroboration is not a sine-qua-non for a conviction in rape case. But, in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus - ...if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities father' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming subject to the following qualification: Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having leveled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self preservation. Or when the 'probabilities factor' is found to be out of tune. 7. Or when the 'probabilities factor' is found to be out of tune. 7. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the evidence of the victim (P.W.8) is extracted below. ...I left the sugarcane field for my home. On my way to home the accused embraced me from my back, squeezed my breast, made me lie on the ground and committed rape ('Atyachara'). I resisted the acts of the accused. I sustained injuries on my right hand, tongue, breast, left cheek. On my shout as the wife of Gouranga Nayak came and shouted 'KIAE, KIAERE PILE, KAN KARUCHHA' the accused got up from me, after which I caught hold of the wife of Gourang Nayak, who nursed me and cleaned my oozing blood. On her question I told the incident to her. On my cry, my husband, my elder brother-in-law and Maharaga ('Dewar') came near me and asked me about the incident, before whom I narrated the incident. Then I was taken to Narsinghpur P.S., from where I was sent to Narsinghpur Hospital for medical examination.... In her cross-examination, P.W.8 has testified that she was holding a sickle at the time of sexual intercourse and she did not assault the accused by that sickle. 8. P.W.3 is the immediate post-occurrence witness. She in her evidence has testified that she was going to the stream to take bath; on her way to the stream at the spot hearing shout she went near the spot and questioned as to what is being done; the victim lady came and embraced her. On her question to the victim, she replied that accused Binay Binaya Kumar Jena v. State of Orissa committed "Kharap Kam" on her; the victim lady told her that the accused committed sexual offence on her on the sugarcane field. She has further testified that the husband and elder brother-in-law of the victim reached near the victim at that time and she (P.W.3) went away when all of them were there. In her cross-examination she (P.W.3) has testified that she did not hear the shout of Laxmi, the victim. P.W.6, who is the elder brother-in-law of the victim, turned hostile. He is testified to have reached the spot on hearing the shout of his younger brother (P.W.2), who is the husband of the victim. 9. In her cross-examination she (P.W.3) has testified that she did not hear the shout of Laxmi, the victim. P.W.6, who is the elder brother-in-law of the victim, turned hostile. He is testified to have reached the spot on hearing the shout of his younger brother (P.W.2), who is the husband of the victim. 9. P.W.2, who is the husband of the victim, has testified about the entire occurrence in a parrot-like manner, which he had not even seen; but from his cross-examination it is found that he ran to the spot, as everyone ran towards the spot. He has further testified that when he reached, Sebati (P.W.3) was on her 'sesame' field. 10. From the aforesaid evidence it is clear that none of the witnesses, i.e., P.W.3 or P.W.2 or P.W.6 came to the spot on being attracted by the shout/cry of the victim. The victim (P.W.8) though was armed with a sickle, did not use the same against the Petitioner when he ravished her. When she (P.W.8) has specifically testified that she resisted the acts of the accused, it is expected as a normal human conduct from her that she would have used the sickle against the accused as during intercourse she was holding the same. P.W.3, who has been examined as immediate post-occurrence witness, did not see the Petitioner at the spot though she saw him later on near the stream. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has testified that by the time he reached at the spot, the accused had already left. Contradicting him P.W.6 though turned hostile, has testified that he rushed near his brother on hearing his shout, but on their sight the accused went away. If evidence of P.W.8 is taken into consideration, P.W.3 happened to pass across the spot when the Petitioner was ravishing the victim and, P.W.3 on being attracted by the shout of the victim intervened and shouted "KIAE, KIAERE PILE, KANA KARUCHHA'. On intervention of P.W.3, the Petitioner got up, after which the victim embraced P.W.3, who nursed her and cleaned her oozing blood. But P.W.3 having not seen the Petitioner at the spot and she having testified that she did not hear the shout of the victim, evidence of P.W.8 cannot be said to have been corroborated by P.W.3. On intervention of P.W.3, the Petitioner got up, after which the victim embraced P.W.3, who nursed her and cleaned her oozing blood. But P.W.3 having not seen the Petitioner at the spot and she having testified that she did not hear the shout of the victim, evidence of P.W.8 cannot be said to have been corroborated by P.W.3. Evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 cannot be held to have corroborated the evidence of P.W.8 in material particular on the point of the actual transaction, though what P.W.2 heard from the victim (P.W.8) is a piece of corroboration u/s 11 of the Evidence Act. But in view of evidence of P.W.3, such evidence of P.W.2, which assumes relevance u/s 11 of the Evidence Act loses all its value. There is further materials to show that P. Ws. 8, 3 and 2 are not consistent about the spot. 11. The Medical Officer (P.W.1) has found some injuries on the person of the victim. Those injuries, if evidence of P.W.2 and the victim (P.W.8) are taken into consideration, might have been caused while working in the sugarcane field, inasmuch as P.W.2 has specifically testified that while uprooting grass from the sugarcane field usually a shirt is put on for protection from scratch and his wife also took a shirt to the sugarcane field. The Medical Officer has further testified that injury No. 3, which is a laceration of 1/2" x linear just below the tongue can also be possible by eating hard substance like betel-nut or sugarcane. In view of such evidence it can be held that the victim (P.W.8) might have eaten sugarcane, as she was working in the sugarcane field and might have sustained such injuries and such injuries cannot be held to be the injury sustained only during the commission of the alleged offence. The victim in her evidence has specifically testified that she got ejaculation from her vagina three to four times at the time of intercourse by the accused and after committing sexual intercourse the accused slept over her. Such fact shows that there was completed sexual intercourse by the Petitioner and immediately on the same day the victim has been examined medically, as she proceeded straight to the P.S. from the spot and from the P.S. she was sent for medical examination. Such fact shows that there was completed sexual intercourse by the Petitioner and immediately on the same day the victim has been examined medically, as she proceeded straight to the P.S. from the spot and from the P.S. she was sent for medical examination. But the Medical Officer (P.W.1) has found that there was no tenderness blood stain or seminal stain on the genital of the victim. 12. If the evidence of P. Ws.8, 3, 2, 6 and 1, as discussed supra, is considered in their entirety in proper perspective, the conclusion would be irresistible that either the Petitioner has been falsely implicated or the victim being influenced by the instinct of her self-preservation has leveled the allegation on being sighted by P.W.3 being engaged with the Petitioner in sexual act. P.W.8 is not at all corroborated by P. Ws.3, 2 or 6 in material particulars. Though there is some corroboration from the medical evidence on the point of injuries sustained by the victim, the defence has successfully brought out the alternative cause that might have been responsible for such injuries sustained by the victim. So far as the sexual act is concerned, there is also no corroboration of the evidence of P.W.8 even from the Medical Officer (P.W.1). 13. Learned courts below having not at all addressed the "probability factors" in the prosecution evidence, which render the same unworthy of credence and having not appreciated the evidence properly, the judgments impugned are held to be perverse and vulnerable under revisional jurisdiction. 14. In view of the above, the conviction of the Appellant u/s 376, I.P.C. and consequent sentence recorded thereunder are set aside. As the Petitioner is stated to be on bail, he be discharged of the bail bond. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed