Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. The appellant-accused has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2004 in Sessions Case No. 95/2003 thereby convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 354 read with 376(2) (f) r/w Section 511 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer two years R.I. and life imprisonment and pay fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. For two years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under: That the families of the PW-1 Complainant Asha and the accused were residing in the neighborhood. It is the prosecution case that on 8th September, 2002 at around 10.00 a.m. when the husband of the Complainant had gone for work, the Complainant was standing at the door of her house along with two daughters namely Ridhi and Aditi. It is the prosecution case that when she was standing with her two daughters, the accused came there and told her that he will take her daughter Ridhi for a round and come back. It is the prosecution case that thereafter the accused took the victim to his home and ravished her. On the basis of this allegation the FIR came to be lodged on 16th September, 2002. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Judge convicted the accused. Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal. 3. For assessing the prosecution case, the main evidence would be that of PW-1 the Complainant. The PW-1 in her evidence states that on 8th September, 2002 at around 10.00 a.m. the accused came to her house and told her that he will take her daughter Ridhi for a round. It is also the case of the Complainant that her house and the accused's house are only at the distance of two houses. She states that thereafter she had given milk to her another daughter namely Aditi which took about 15-20 minutes. She states that after 15-20 minutes she went to the room of the accused to get her daughter back. It is her case that when she called her daughter, the accused told her that she was watching T.V. She states that at that time the accused was inside his room and from that room he said that her daughter was watching T.V.. It is her case that when she called her daughter, the accused told her that she was watching T.V. She states that at that time the accused was inside his room and from that room he said that her daughter was watching T.V.. She further states that thereafter she again shouted for her daughter by standing outside the house of the accused. She states that thereafter she came back and did some household work. Again after 15-20 minutes she went back to the room of the accused to bring her daughter and while standing outside the room, she shouted “Ridhi, Ridhi; where are your?” She states that she was standing there for 2-3 minutes. Thereafter, she removed the curtain of the door of the accused, again she called her daughter twice. The father of the accused was sleeping. Again she called her daughter 2-3 times and father of the accused told her that she was inside with the accused. She again called for her daughter and that time her daughter came out. She states that her knicker was on her legs. When she shouted for her, she came out and hugged and clinged to her. She states that accused saw her and started tying his towel on her. She suspected that accused must have done something to her daughter Ridhi and she examined knicker of her daughter and she noticed that her private part was red and there was sticky substance on her private part and on her knicker. Thereafter, she abused the accused and at that time accused came out from inside and started asking for pardon. At that time father of the accused came behind and told her to keep quiet and not to create any 'hungama'. She states that she again felt that accused has committed rape on her daughter. Thereafter, she gave bath to her daughter and also washed her knicker. She states that at that time she wanted to phone her husband but everyone told her not to telephone. It is her version that her husband returned at around 8.00 p.m. and at that time she informed him about the incident and her husband went to the house of the accused but accused was not there in the house. She said that she did not take immediate action against the accused due to the fear of their name being spoiled. She said that she did not take immediate action against the accused due to the fear of their name being spoiled. She further states that after this, her daughter started having trouble and because of her complaint she examined her private part and at that time she noticed that her private part had become red. She states that on 12th September, 2002 she telephoned her husband at 4.00 p.m. After that he came home and she herself, her husband and daughter Ridhi went to police station at 8.00 p.m. She narrated the incident to the police station and thereafter her daughter was taken to Mulund General Hospital for treatment and she was kept at that time in the hospital for 3-4 hours and thereafter transferred to Sion hospital and was admitted there for three days. After that she was discharged. She further states that on 16th September, 2002 she lodged the complaint against the accused. The said complaint came to be treated as FIR which is marked as Exhibit 7. 4. No doubt that the conviction can be based on a sole testimony of a witness. However, the testimony of such a witness is required to be found to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. If the evidence of a witness is not corroborated by any other evidence, it is not safe to rest a conviction based on such an evidence. 5. Admittedly, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1. On the contrary, the report of the medical officer would falsify the version given by PW-1. It will be relevant to refer to Exhibit 15 which is a medical report on the examination of the prosecutrix victim by Committee consisting of four Doctors. The said report clearly states that on examination of Genitalia, there was no local vulval injury and hymen was intact. The said report further states that as considerable time had lapsed between the alleged incident i.e. on 8th September, 2002 and reporting of the patient for examination i.e. on 19th September, 2002, no definite opinion can be given about the alleged sexual assault. However, the report of the examination of the prosecutrix by Dr. Meghana Joshi dated 23rd September, 2002 would be relevant. The said report also states “Local vulval examination: the Hymen intact. No local vulval injury.” 6. However, the report of the examination of the prosecutrix by Dr. Meghana Joshi dated 23rd September, 2002 would be relevant. The said report also states “Local vulval examination: the Hymen intact. No local vulval injury.” 6. In the context of this medical report, we will have to examine the veracity of the testimony of PW 1. The PW-1 in her evidence states that after the prosecutrix was taken on round, she went after 1520 minutes to the house of the accused and thereafter standing outside the house of accused shouted for 2-3 minutes. At that time the accused told her that prosecutrix was watching T.V. Still she shouted for the prosecutrix. Thereafter, she again came back and did some household work. Again after 15-20 minutes she went back to room of the accused to bring daughter Ridhi. She was standing there for 2-3 minutes and shouting 'Ridhi Ridhi'. It is stated that even then the accused or the daughter did not come out, and therefore, she opened the curtain and only after opening the curtain the prosecutrix came and at that time she saw the accused wrapping a towel on her person. The entire conduct appears to be unnatural. When a daughter of two years was in the house of the accused, the normal conduct of a child after the calls were given by the mother would be to respond to such calls. If the daughter did not respond to such calls then the natural conduct of a mother was to immediately enquire. In normal circumstances, at the first instance itself the mother would have gone inside the house and looked for the daughter but in the present case the Complainant went back to her home and again returned after 15-20 minutes. Even on this occasion she stood outside for 2-3 minutes and went on giving calls to her daughter. Even on this occasion the prosecutrix does not respond. After waiting for considerable time the mother opens the curtain. The entire conduct appears to be unnatural. 7. The Complainant thereafter states that at that time she examined the private part of the daughter and her knicker and seen that her private part had become red and there was sticky substance on her private part and her knicker. After going home she does not telephoned her husband but gives a bath to the daughter and washes her clothes. The Complainant thereafter states that at that time she examined the private part of the daughter and her knicker and seen that her private part had become red and there was sticky substance on her private part and her knicker. After going home she does not telephoned her husband but gives a bath to the daughter and washes her clothes. According to her evidence, the daughter was complaining on the very same day, however, instead of taking the daughter to the hospital on 8th September, 2002 she waits on 9th, 10th and 11th and takes her daughter to the police station and thereafter to the hospital on 12th September, 2002, that also at 8.00 p.m. Though the learned Judge has observed that delay in lodging the FIR is properly explained, we are at pains to say that we are unable to find such an explanation in the entire evidence of the Complainant. The conduct of the normal human being would have been to report such an incident immediately to the police and take daughter for treatment. However, though according to the Complainant the daughter was complaining from the first day, she wasted four intervening days to take her to police and hospital and took her only on 12th September, 2002, that too at 8.00 p.m. In our considered view the entire conduct of the Complainant as seen from her evidence is unnatural. As we have already stated herein above the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case, on the contrary, it falsifies the version given by the Complainant. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the defence of the accused that on account of dispute regarding a monetary transaction between the mother of the accused and the Complainant, the accused has been falsely robed in, appears to be a probable defence. In any case, the evidence of the Complainant is not of such a nature which would inspire confidence and can be said to be cogent, trustworthy and reliable so as to base conviction solely on the basis of same without there being corroboration. 9. In that view of the matter, we find that learned Judge has grossly erred in convicting the accused and pass the following order: (i) The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. (ii) The order of conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside. 9. In that view of the matter, we find that learned Judge has grossly erred in convicting the accused and pass the following order: (i) The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. (ii) The order of conviction and sentence is quashed and set aside. The accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. (iii) The fine amount be refunded to the accused. The Legal Services Committee to pay the fees of Shri Arfan Sait, the learned Counsel who was appointed to appear on behalf of the appellant. 10. We place on record our appreciation for the efforts taken by Shri Arfan Sait in arguing the matter. 11. In view of disposal of appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the bail application and the same is disposed of accordingly.