JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. This appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr. P.C., in short), is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.07.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Case No. ST 48(ST/S)/2008, sentencing the appellant to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for two months for commission of offence, punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case, as transpires from the record, may be noted briefly for the purpose of appreciation. The prosecutrix (PW.1) filed a complaint to the Officer In-charge, Silacharri P.S., Sabroom, South Tripura, alleging that on 13.04.2008 at night, while she was sleeping in her room with her sister's five years old daughter, at about 12 at night the appellant entered into her room breaking the fence of her room and forcibly pressed her on the bed. When she flashed the torchlight she recognized the appellant. The appellant took out her wearing apparels and outraged her modesty. When she tried to raise alarm, the appellant pressed her mouth. For application of force the bangles of her hands were broken and she suffered cut injuries. The neckpiece on her neck also got torn. She informed her parents as well as the people of the locality and sought for justice but when no effort was taken by the neighbourhood people she filed the complaint in writing on 14.04.2008, on the basis of which Silacharri P.S. case No.01/2008 under Sections 457 and 376 of Indian Penal Code was registered. 2. On completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, and thereafter, the case, being ST 48(ST/S) of 2008, was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur for trial. The said Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant to the effect that on or about 13.04.2008 at Potachhari, P.S. Silachari, the appellant committed rape on the prosecutrix, and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. To such charge the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution, to drive home the charge, examined as many as 17(seventeen) witnesses, and it appears from the record that the defence also examined 2(two) witnesses. To such charge the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution, to drive home the charge, examined as many as 17(seventeen) witnesses, and it appears from the record that the defence also examined 2(two) witnesses. The prosecution also admitted some documents as Exbts.1 to 11. On recording the evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. It is necessary to point out that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C., where she stated before the Court as under:- On 13/04/08 in the night I was sleeping my house with my sister's daughter at 12.00 clock at that time accused Hari Madhab Tripura entered into my room by damaging my room's fencing and he caught hold of me and he kept one cloth on my mouth and he threatened me not to cry and as my mouth was closed by the accused with the cloth I could not cry and thereafter he forcibly put me on the ground and with the torch light of mine I could recognize the face of the accused and he forcefully torn out my cloth and he raped me and he ran away from the spot. 4. Let the evidences, as recorded be appreciated for the purpose of adjudicating the challenge. (i) The prosecutrix appeared and deposed in the Court as PW.1, where repeatedly she submitted in the complaint as well as in the statement as recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. but in the deposition she elaborated certain matters, which were omitted in the complaint and in the statement, made under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. but in the deposition she made it clear that the appellant committed rape on her. She also stated that she was produced by the police to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Sabroom for medical examination. On 17.04.2008 she was produced by the police at IGM Hospital, Agartala for her ossification test. She stated that on the night of the incident, during scuffling with the accused, her bungles made of glass had also broken. She also deposed that one police officer seized all those articles from her dwelling hut in presence of witnesses by drawing a seizure list. She stated that on the night of the incident, during scuffling with the accused, her bungles made of glass had also broken. She also deposed that one police officer seized all those articles from her dwelling hut in presence of witnesses by drawing a seizure list. She categorically denied the suggestion as projected by the defence that the accused was not present on the night of incident as he was in the house of Jatana Tripura of Ghorakappa along with Jatan Tripura and her brother Bha mura Tripura. (ii) One Bha mura Tripura, brother of the prosecutrix deposed as PW.2. He stated that he heard from her sister that Hari Madhab Tripura entered into her dwelling hut breaking open the bamboo made wall and committed rape on her. They reported the incident to the elderly persons of the village, who tried to settle the matter but failed. Then the prosecutrix lodged the complaint with the police. He was the seizure witness of one blanket, one petticoat of his sister, some broken bungles, one torchlight, etc., seized from the dwelling hut of his sister by drawing a seizure list (Exbt.3) and the seized materials were exhibited as MO.1 series. In the cross-examination, though, he denied that Hari Madhab alias Madhab Tripura also accompanied them as an invitee but it was found that such statement is there. He stated in the examination-in-chief that the torchlight, which was seized by the police, was owned by Braja Kishore Tripura and at the time of incident it was in their house. He categorically denied that the torchlight was brought from the house of Braja Kishore Tripura of Suknachari on 14.04.2008 to make a false case against the appellant. The defence suggested that the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case for previous enmity but PW.2 refused to accept that suggestion. (iii) PW.3 is another brother of the prosecutrix, who stated that he did not see anything but on the following day he found that the prosecutrix was weeping and having been asked he was told that she was raped by the appellant. He stated that he took the prosecutrix to the village Chairman on 14.04.2008. He categorically admitted to the suggestion of the defence that the prosecutrix did not tell him that she identified the accused in the darkness. He stated that he took the prosecutrix to the village Chairman on 14.04.2008. He categorically admitted to the suggestion of the defence that the prosecutrix did not tell him that she identified the accused in the darkness. (iv) The mother of the prosecutrix, namely, Smt. Manju Tripura was examined by the prosecution as PW.4. She stated that at the relevant time she was sleeping in another hut along with her husband. On hearing cry of her daughter she wake up and rushed to the dwelling hut of her daughter and wanted to know the reason for her crying. The prosecutrix told her that the appellant entered into her dwelling hut breaking open the bamboo made wall and committed rape on her. Thereafter, she called her husband and sons, who were sleeping and reported the incident to them and thereafter to the village Chairman. The Chairman assured that she would settle the matter on the next day. As the Chairman failed to settle the matter, her daughter reported the incident to the police. After lodging the FIR, police came to their house and took away the broken pieces of bungles made of glass, one blanket, the petticoat and one torchlight from the dwelling hut of her daughter, after drawing up the seizure list. She stated in the cross-examination that her son, Bhra mura Tripura was not in the house and he was in the house of Jatana Tripura. She denied that the appellant did not enter in their house on 13.04.2008 or that he did not commit rape on the prosecutrix. She flatly denied the suggestion as projected by the defence that for previous enmity the appellant had been falsely implicated in the case. (v) One Birbal Marak, who is the friend of PW.2, stated that he wrote the FIR as per the prosecutrix's saying and thereafter she was read over the contents and having been satisfied that the FIR had been correctly written she signed over it. PW.5 is also the witness to the seizure of one blanket, broken pieces of bungles made of glass and one torchlight, etc. In the cross-examination he did not deviate from any statement made in the examination-in-chief. (vi) PW.6, namely, Jatan Tripura stated that Bhra mura Tripura and he took lunch in the house of the appellant and stayed there till evening. Thereafter, they left for Ghorakappa to enjoy 'Charak' puja. In the cross-examination he did not deviate from any statement made in the examination-in-chief. (vi) PW.6, namely, Jatan Tripura stated that Bhra mura Tripura and he took lunch in the house of the appellant and stayed there till evening. Thereafter, they left for Ghorakappa to enjoy 'Charak' puja. He met his brother-in-law Jatana Tripura at Ghurakappa. He took them to his house to take dinner. He categorically stated as PW.6 that "Hari Madhab Tripura' Bhramra Tripura and myself took dinner in the house of my said brother-in-law and passed the whole night in his house. Next day morning' on returning home' I came to know from my wife that Hari Madhab Tripura committed rape on Batalaxmi Tripura entering into her dwelling house breaking open the bamboo made wall'. This witness is declared hostile by the prosecution but he did not deviate from what he stated in the examination-in-chief. (vii) PW.7 is the brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, who stated that on 14.04.2008 in the morning the prosecutrix came to their house and informed her that on the previous night at about 12 O'clock the appellant entered into her dwelling hut breaking open the bamboo made wall and committed rape on her. She admitted to have advised the prosecutrix to settle the dispute amicably in the village. In the examination-in-chief, PW.7 did not deviate much and as such those parts of the examination do not bear any evidential value. (viii) One day-labourer, namely Tiri Chandra Tripura, who deposed as PW.8 stated that his mother-in-law came to their house on 14.04.2008 and told him that on the previous night at about 12 O'clock the appellant entered into the dwelling hut of the accused breaking open the bamboo made wall and then committed rape on her. PW.8 claimed to have asked the prosecutrix to lodge the complaint to the police. In the cross-examination, PW.8 did not deviate in any manner to extend any advantage out of his cross-examination. (ix) Victor Sinha, a Constable of Silacharri P.S. was examined by the prosecution as PW.9. He stated that the investigating officer seized one panty of the victim, one old torn blanket, some pieces of broken bungles made of glass, one torchlight, etc. from the dwelling hut of the victim in presence of the PW.9 and others by drawing seizure list. He signed the seizure list. He stated that the investigating officer seized one panty of the victim, one old torn blanket, some pieces of broken bungles made of glass, one torchlight, etc. from the dwelling hut of the victim in presence of the PW.9 and others by drawing seizure list. He signed the seizure list. On 08.05.2008 the investigating officer seized vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and kept the same in a small plastic container at the police station on drawing the seizure list (Exbt.4). In the cross-examination, he did not state anything of material importance. (x) PW.10 again is a Constable, namely Suman Modak posted at Silacharri P.S. at the relevant time. He was the seizure witness of the plastic container containing the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. In the cross he did not reveal anything of material consequence. (xi) PW.11 is again a Constable of Silacharri P.S. He was a witness of the seizure to the sample of blood, urine, saliva, public hair, etc. of the appellant at Sabroom Hospital complex in presence of his fellow constable, Manik Biswas by drawing the seizure list, to which the PW.11 signed as witness. In the cross he did not divulge anything either to disclose or to support further the examination-in-chief. (xii) One Dr. Ashoke Majumder, who deposed as PW.12, stated that on 17.04.2008 he examined the prosecutrix to ascertain her age in connection with Silacharri P.S. case No.01 of 2008. He stated that he found her age would be 15 to 17 years and identified the said report (Exbt.6). In the cross-examination he stated nothing of material consequence. (xiii) One Dr. Mantu Chakma, who was working at Silacharri PHC, was examined by the prosecution as PW.13. He stated apart other thing that he, after examining the appellant, submitted report (Exbt.7). He also examined the prosecutrix in connection with Silacharri P.S. case No.01 of 2008 under Sections 457/376 of IPC. He categorically stated that he found no external injury on her body but found her hymen was torn. "According to my opinion she was sexually victimized as I found sign of rape on her body and I also prepared my report." In the cross-examination he stated that he did not mention the age of hymen tear. (xix) Another doctor, namely Dr. Sar mistha Chowdhury was examined as PW.14. She deposed that on 31.05.2008 she was working in the Sabroom Sub-Divisional Hospital as Medical Officer. (xix) Another doctor, namely Dr. Sar mistha Chowdhury was examined as PW.14. She deposed that on 31.05.2008 she was working in the Sabroom Sub-Divisional Hospital as Medical Officer. Her medical qualification was sufficient to occupy the position she was having then. She stated that on 31.05.2008 at about 11.10 a m she examined one Hari Madhab Tripura, aged about 25 years and found that he was capable of sexual intercourse and she identified the said report (Exbt.9). (xx) One Sr. Scientific Officer, Dr. Subhankar Nath appeared and deposed as PW.15 for the prosecution. He stated that on 02.06.2008 he received a sealed parcel from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sabroom. The Director of State Forensic Science Laboratory endorsed him the parcel for examination and report. The parcel contained 11 exhibits, which were marked as Exbts. A to K respectively. On examination of a piece of gauge of cloth containing vaginal swab of the prosecutrix he found blood stain but no spermatozoa of human origin was found by him. On examination of Exbt. B, seminal stain, spermatozoa of human origin, hair and blood, could not be detected. On examination of Exbt. C, seminal stain, blood stain could not be detected. On examination of Exbt. E, blood could be detected. On examination of Exbt. F, human scalp hair was found. On examination of Exbt. G, seminal stain/spermatozoa could not be detected. On examination of Exbt. H, saliva stain could not be detected. On examination of Exbts. 1, 3, K, seminal stain/spermatozoa of human origin could not be detected. He admitted the report in the Court as Exbt.10. In the examination-in-chief he did not divulge or reveal anything material importance. (xxi) The Officer In-charge of the Silacharri P.S. deposed as PW.16. On 14.04.2008 on the basis of a written complaint of the prosecutrix he registered the complaint as Silacharri P.S. case No.01 of 2008 under Sections 457 and 376 of IPC. He admitted that he endorsed the written complaint to SI Badal Mallik of Silacharri P.S. He also did not reveal anything of material consequence. (xxii) One Badal Mallik, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Silacharri P.S., deposed as PW.17, who stated that on 14.04.2008 he received the case for investigation. After taking over the investigation he examined the prosecutrix and her elder brother Bhamura Tripura and on the following day he sent the prosecutrix to Silacharri PHC for medical examination. (xxii) One Badal Mallik, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Silacharri P.S., deposed as PW.17, who stated that on 14.04.2008 he received the case for investigation. After taking over the investigation he examined the prosecutrix and her elder brother Bhamura Tripura and on the following day he sent the prosecutrix to Silacharri PHC for medical examination. He stated that he visited the place of occurrence and prepared hand-sketch map with proper index. He seized the swab as collected by the Medical Officer by preparing the seizure list. He also confirmed that the prosecutrix was sent to the Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement under Section 164(5) of Cr. P.C. He also requisitioned for the Medical Officer for forensic test and on receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agartala, the PW.17, on being satisfied prima facie that there were materials for trial against the appellant under Sections 457/376 of IPC, submitted charge sheet against the appellant. In the cross-examination, he stated nothing material of importance but denied the suggestion that his investigation was perfunctory. Thereafter, the statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. (xxiii) One Jatana Tripura appeared as DW.2, who stated that at around 08.00 p m he found Jatan Tripura, Bhamura Tripura and Hari Madhab Tripura at Gurakappa Bazar on the occasion of 'Charak Mela'. He stated that he invited them to his house for dinner and they came to his house and took their meal on that night. On the following day in the morning at around 06.00 am they left his house. In the cross he did not reveal anything material of consequence. (xxiv) DW.2, namely Smt. Jatan Bala Tripura stated that the appellant, Jatana Tripura and Bho mura Tripura came to their house at Ghurakappa and had dinner with them. On that night they did not return to their house and they went to the house on the early morning of the following day. She affirmed that they did not go out from their house on that night. The appellant was also present in the Court. She stated that their dwelling hut consists of only one room. She and her husband were sleeping on a cot in the night when the appellant and others stayed in their house. The appellant is her brother. She affirmed that they did not go out from their house on that night. The appellant was also present in the Court. She stated that their dwelling hut consists of only one room. She and her husband were sleeping on a cot in the night when the appellant and others stayed in their house. The appellant is her brother. She denied the suggestion to save her brother she deposed falsely. 5. In the medical examination report of the prosecutrix it has been recorded that the case is consistent with a case of rape as the hymen was found torn. The appellant was also found capable of making sexual intercourse in the potentiality test. In the forensic report, no spermatozoa could be found in the vaginal swab. Even the woolen blanket, which was seized, did not contain any spermatozoa of human origin. Nowhere spermatozoa were found. The forensic report did not contain any indication of rape. 6. Except the evidence of alibi the defence did not try to bring any other episode whereas the prosecution case is entirely based on the statement of the prosecutrix. It appears from the complaint of the prosecutrix that initially she stated that her modesty was outraged by the appellant and thereafter, while she was giving her statement under Section 164(5) of Cr. P.C., she stated that she was raped. From the seized materials, such as, the broken piece of the glass bangles, the version of the prosecutrix got corroborated. From the medical examination report, the statement of the prosecutrix was also corroborated that she was raped. There is no other evidence to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix even the torchlight, by aid of which she identified the appellant, was also seized by the police and admit. Now the alibi, as advanced by the defence, how far can be believed, is required to be examined. It is well settled that the plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainties so as to completely exclude the possibilities of presence of the accused in the place of crime. In Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. as reported in AIR 1981 SC 911 , the Apex Court held: The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. In Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. as reported in AIR 1981 SC 911 , the Apex Court held: The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed. The evidence of the defence witnesses' accepting it at its face value' is consistent with the appellant's presence at the Naini factory at 8.30 A.M. and at the scene of offence at 9.00 A.M. So short is the distance between the two points. The workers punch their cards when they enter the factory but when they leave the factory' they do not have to punch the time of their exit. The appellant' in all probability' went to the factory at the appointed hour' left it immediately and went in search of his prey. He knew when' precisely' Pappoo would return after dropping Ranjana at the school. The appellant appears to have attempted to go back to his work but that involved the risk of the time of his re-entry being punched again. That is how he was arrested at about 2.30 P.M. while he was loitering near the pan-shop in front of the factory. There is no truth in the claim that he was arrested from inside the factory. 7. In the statement as recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. the appellant even though has claimed that at the night of commission of offence he was at Ghurakappa in the residence of DW.1 and DW.2 along with PW.2, who however categorically denied that he was with the appellant in one invitation. The defence tried to bring out one statement in the records that "Hari Madhab Tripura also accompanied us as an invitee" but that statement was not affirmed and admitted in the evidence by PW.17. For this reason this piece of evidence was correctly ignored by the learned trial court. The statement of PW.6, if closely scrutinized, it would be found that he did not definitely state where the appellant stayed at night. Moreover, he was found to be a hostile to his previous statement and as such he was declared hostile. For this reason this piece of evidence was correctly ignored by the learned trial court. The statement of PW.6, if closely scrutinized, it would be found that he did not definitely state where the appellant stayed at night. Moreover, he was found to be a hostile to his previous statement and as such he was declared hostile. DW.2, who deposed to establish the alibi, categorically admitted that she is the sister of the appellant whereas DW.1 is her husband. Those two witnesses, having been closely related to the appellant, cannot, on the face, be believed. Their depositions have to be placed under the scanner to find out whether those statements are afterthought to save the appellant or not. According to DW.1, there had been a chance meeting with the appellant and the brother of the prosecutrix and one Jatan Tripura. He invited them in his house for dinner and on the following day they left for their houses. In his statement he categorically stated that at about 08.00 p m he met with those three persons but in the cross-examination when it was pointed out to him that he invited Hari Madhab and Bha mura Tripura to his house. The said statement was admitted in the evidence as Exbt.4. Further, that statement was also not pointed out to the investigating officer for confirmation. No details, such as, distance between the place of occurrence and the house of DWs was brought out to prove the improbability of the appellant's presence in the place of occurrence. It appears that the said episode is an afterthought for the purpose of saving the appellant. Therefore, this piece of evidence cannot be relied. It is apparent that the prosecutrix's version got corroborated by the other witnesses. Even though the forensic report discloses that no spermatozoa was available in the blanket or in the swab which was collected from the vaginal canal of the prosecutrix but it is also to be kept in mind that such medical examination was held after two days(on 15.04.2008) of the occurrence. It is well established in the medical parlance that if the prosecutrix urinated after the incident of rape, no spermatozoa might be available in the swab collected from the vagina. In the medical report the Medical Officer categorically opined that the case is consistent with the case of rape. It is well established in the medical parlance that if the prosecutrix urinated after the incident of rape, no spermatozoa might be available in the swab collected from the vagina. In the medical report the Medical Officer categorically opined that the case is consistent with the case of rape. It is held by the apex Court on umpteen occasions that if the totality of the circumstances appearing in the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsify involvement of the person charged, the Court should ordinarily not have any hesitation in accepting her evidence. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh & other as reported in (1996)2 SCC 384 , the apex Court enunciated as under:- The courts must' while evaluating evidence' remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape' no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation' supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not' unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature' be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement' the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same' as a rule' in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation' be viewed with doubt' disbelief or suspicion? Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same' as a rule' in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation' be viewed with doubt' disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience' since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her' but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence' which is not found to be self-inflicted' is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit' the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight' absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion' treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if' taken as a whole' the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if' taken as a whole' the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990)1 SCC 550 Ahmadi' J. (as the Lord Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Bench summarized the position in the following words: (SCC p.559' para 16) A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix' there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction of her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality and the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged' the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 9. We are in respectful agreement with the above exposition of law. If the totality and the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged' the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 9. We are in respectful agreement with the above exposition of law. In the instant case our careful analysis of the statement of the prosecutrix has created an impression on our minds that she is a reliable and truthful witness. Her testimony suffers from no infirmity or blemish whatsoever. We have no hesitation in acting upon her testimony alone without looking for any "corroboration'. However' in this case there is ample corroboration available on the record to lend further credence to the testimony of the prosecutrix. 8. In Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. as reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 , the apex Court laid the principle of appreciating the testimony of the prosecutrix of a sexual offence: In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550 this Court speaking through one of us (Ahmadi' J.) had occasion to point out that a woman who is a victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and therefore her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. She is not in the category of a child witness or an accomplice and therefore the rule of prudence that her evidence must be corroborated in material particulars has no application' at the most the court may look for some evidence which lends assurance. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding of the conviction as returned by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur and accordingly, this appeal fails. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Send down the L.C. records forthwith. Appeal dismissed.