JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 07.1.2006/17.1.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2005. The appellant hereinafter to be referred to as 'the accused', was convicted by the learned trial Court, for offence punishable under Sections 342, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the commission of offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to further undergo imprisonment for two months. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to suffer imprisonment for six months. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for commission of an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that on 21.06.2003, PW-14, Smt. Lal Dei at 2:30 a.m., got her statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Ex. PW9/A recorded to the effect that on 20.06.2003, she alongwith her younger brother Vikas and PW-2 prosecutrix had gone to Udaipur to purchase some clothes for her younger brother Vikas. At about 8:00 p.m., all of them were returning to their homes at village Salpat and when proceeding near a place called Mini Manali, a taxi came from behind which was being driven by the accused. The accused stopped the vehicle and asked them to sit in the vehicle on the pretext that he would leave them near Salpat Jhula. All of them, boarded the vehicle. When the accused stopped the vehicle, all of them boarded down from the vehicle. However, the accused forcibly dragged the prosecutrix and made her to sit in the vehicle and drove the said vehicle towards Udaipur. The prosecutrix started crying. It was dark, hence she alongwith her brother Vikas could not go towards Udaipur. All of them, boarded the vehicle. When the accused stopped the vehicle, all of them boarded down from the vehicle. However, the accused forcibly dragged the prosecutrix and made her to sit in the vehicle and drove the said vehicle towards Udaipur. The prosecutrix started crying. It was dark, hence she alongwith her brother Vikas could not go towards Udaipur. They proceeded to their village and disclosed this incident to PW-1, Bimla Devi, elder sister of the prosecutrix by visiting her house. PW-1, Bimla Devi, accompanied by her brother Karam Lal and PW-14, Lal Dei, went in search of Sumitra to Udaipur. They searched out the prosecutrix at Udaipur. They visited the house of accused. She was not found there. They found one taxi parked near the house of Sukh Diyal, in which the prosecutrix was not found. The door of the house was bolted from inside. PW-14, Smt. Lal Dei knocked the door of the house of the accused and asked him about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix. The accused denied the presence of prosecutrix. However, when PW-14, Lal Dei looked inside the room, the prosecutrix was present inside the room, of the accused. She was weeping. She was found confined. On the basis of Ex. PW-9/A, FIR Ex. PW9/B was registered. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The accused was also medically examined. Taxi was impounded. The spot of occurrence was also got identified from the accused. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined 18 witnesses. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him, the case was false and he was innocent and the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely against him. The trial Court convicted the accused, as stated hereinabove. Hence this appeal. 4. Mr. Rameshwar Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. He then argued that no injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix. He has put strong reliance on the statement of PW-14, Smt. Lal Dei. 5. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment, dated 07.01.2006/17.01.2006. 6. PW-1 is Smt. Bimla Devi. He then argued that no injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix. He has put strong reliance on the statement of PW-14, Smt. Lal Dei. 5. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment, dated 07.01.2006/17.01.2006. 6. PW-1 is Smt. Bimla Devi. She is elder sister of the prosecutrix. According to her, at. about 9:00 p.m., Lal Dei alongwith Vikas came to their house. Sumitra was riot with them. Lal Dei, PW-14 disclosed that one Sukh Diyal, resident of village Tindi, had taken back Sumitra from the place near Jhula in his taxi. She along with Lal Dei, Vikas, her brother and Karam Lal, went in search of Sumitra to Udaipur. They searched for Sumitra in Udaipur bazaar. On their inquiry, one person named Bhag Singh of Tindi, disclosed that Sukh Diyal had gone to Myor Nallah. During the intervening night at 2:00 a.m., a taxi came and the same was parked near the quarter of Sukh Diyal, They saw inside the taxi, but Sumitra was not inside the same. They opened the door of the quarter and found prosecutrix, Bhag Singh, resident of Tindi and Sukh Diyal present in the room. They disclosed the incident to the police. She identified her sister Sumitra and police handed over Sumitra Devi to them vide supurdari memo Ex. PW1/A. She has denied the suggestion that Sumitra had forgotten few articles in the bazaar at Udaipur and hence, she returned from Jhula in the taxi of the accused to Udaipur bazaar to bring back those articles. 7. PW-2, prosecutrix has deposed that three years back in the month of June, she alongwith Lal Dei and her brother went to Udaipur bazaar to purchase clothes for Vikas. They started from their house at about 12:00 noon to Udaipur bazaar. While going to Udaipur and coming back, they have to cross a Jhula over a river named Chanderbhaga. She alongwith Lal Dei and Vikas proceeded towards their house after shopping. While coming at a place Mini Manali, the accused came in a vehicle, which was being driven by him. He asked all of them to sit in the vehicle. They boarded the vehicle. It was about 6:00 p.m. The accused took them in the vehicle up to Jhula. On reaching there, he dropped all of them. He turned the vehicle. While coming at a place Mini Manali, the accused came in a vehicle, which was being driven by him. He asked all of them to sit in the vehicle. They boarded the vehicle. It was about 6:00 p.m. The accused took them in the vehicle up to Jhula. On reaching there, he dropped all of them. He turned the vehicle. After turning back the vehicle, accused Sukh Diyal caught hold her from her hand and dragged into the vehicle and took her in the vehicle towards Udaipur. She cried to save her, but he gagged her mouth. He took the vehicle towards helipad at Udaipur. The helipad was at a distance of about 2-3 kms. From Udaipur. The accused told her to board down from the vehicle by holding her hands and dragging her towards the bank of river. The accused untied the string of her salwar and committed rape after making her to lie upon the earth. The accused committed forcible intercourse with her twice. She was kept on the bank of river by the accused for 4-5 hours. Thereafter, the accused took her to his quarter at Salpat. In his quarter, the accused made her to lie and put a quilt on her. At about 3:00 a.m., her sister PW-1, Bimla alongwith Lal Dei and police came there and recovered her from there. Shirt Ex, P-2, trousers Ex. P-3, scarf Ex. P4, basket Ex. P5 and shirt Ex, P6 were taken into possession by the doctor. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the accused was alone in the vehicle at that time. According to her, all of them boarded the vehicle on asking of accused voluntarily. She has admitted that the vehicle came up to Jhula and the accused left them up to Jhula. The road near Jhula was congested. She has denied the suggestion that when they reached near Jhula, she recollected that she had left few articles in the shop at Udaipur. She has denied the suggestion that the accused has not applied force for dragging her to the vehicle. She has admitted that on Udaipur-Killer road vehicles ply regularly. According to her, it took two hours in the vehicle from Jhula up to helipad. The helipad was at a distance of one kilometer from the road. She has again denied the suggestion that she has gone with the accused voluntarily. She has admitted that on Udaipur-Killer road vehicles ply regularly. According to her, it took two hours in the vehicle from Jhula up to helipad. The helipad was at a distance of one kilometer from the road. She has again denied the suggestion that she has gone with the accused voluntarily. She has denied the suggestion that she has received scratches while cutting grass. She has denied the suggestion that during that night she has gone as guest in the room of Bhag Singh. 8. PW-3, Sh. Bir Singh was posted as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Udaipur during the year 2003. He issued abstract of parivar register Ex. PW3/B on an application Ex. PW3/A. As per the entry in parivar register, the age of the prosecutrix was recorded as 11.09.1984. 9. PW-5, Saran Das has deposed that he was associated in the investigation of the case. The accused in his presence and Karam Lal has disclosed to the police that he could identify the place where he committed rape with Sumitra Devi. The spot was pointed out by the accused. The memo Ex. PW5/A was prepared. 10. PW-6, Gauri Dutt Sharma, has deposed that on 22.06.2003, the accused was in the custody of police and disclosed that he could identify the spot where he had committed rape upon Sumitra. The statement of the accused was recorded by the police in his presence and in the presence of Jai Singh vide Ex. PW6/A. 11. PW-7, Dr. Gian Thakur, has deposed that he was posted as Scientific Officer in State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga since 1998. According to his report, Cholu Ex. P2 was found having human semen. Salwar Ex. P3 was found to contain human blood and no semen was found on the same Nothing was found on scarp Ex. P4, jacket Ex. PS and shirt Ex. P6. Human blood was found on vaginal swabs, vaginal slides, but no semen was detected on these articles. Human blood was found on pubic hair of victim, but no semen was found on it. Human blood was found on scrapping of nails, but no semen was found on these scrapping. Human blood was found on vaginal smear slides of victim, but no semen was found on it. Human blood and human semen was found on underwear Ex. P4 of accused. Human blood was found on shirt of Sukh Diyal. Human blood was found on scrapping of nails, but no semen was found on these scrapping. Human blood was found on vaginal smear slides of victim, but no semen was found on it. Human blood and human semen was found on underwear Ex. P4 of accused. Human blood was found on shirt of Sukh Diyal. No blood and semen could be found on trouser of accused. He also deposed that human blood was found on traces on buckle swabs and uretheral and prepuse coronel circus swabs of accused, which was found insufficient for further examination. No semen was found on it No human blood was found on swab slides nor semen was found on the same belonging to accused. He also deposed that human blood was found on pubic hair of accused, which was insufficient for further examination, but no semen was found on it. No blood and semen was found on scalp hair of accused nor on nail scrapping and loose hairs found on pent of accused. He has prepared report Ex. PW7/A. 12. The victim was medically examined by PW-17, Dr. Shruti. She has issued MLC Ex. PW17/B. According to her, on 21.06.2003 at 10:00 a.m., on the basis of application Ex. PW17/A, moved by the police of Police Station, Udaipur, she medically examined the prosecutrix. As per medical examination, PW-17 observed as under: (i) The prosecutrix had last menstruation on 17.6.2003 and was menstruating at the time of medical examination. (ii) The prosecutrix was having few scratches on buttocks. (iii) There was no swelling or tenderness or nail marks, nail scratches over labia majora. (iv) There was slight swelling and tenderness over labia minora. (v) Hymen:-There was small tears at 3, 8, 9 and 12' O Clock position, edges tender and swelling over hymen. (vi) Vagina was not able to pass two fingers. PW-17 has not given any final opinion on 21.06.2003, since the prosecutrix was undergoing menstrual period and re-examination was advised. On 23.06.2013, the prosecutrix was re-examined. On re-examination, swelling which was earlier found at labia majora had subsided and there was only mild tenderness. Hymen was annular and torn at 3, 8 and 9' O Clock position. Edges were swollen and tender, but there was bleeding. Vaginal orifice allowed passage of single finger. There was mild tenderness in the posterior fornix. On re-examination, swelling which was earlier found at labia majora had subsided and there was only mild tenderness. Hymen was annular and torn at 3, 8 and 9' O Clock position. Edges were swollen and tender, but there was bleeding. Vaginal orifice allowed passage of single finger. There was mild tenderness in the posterior fornix. On the basis of such re-examination, PW-17 has testified that in her opinion, the act of recent sexual intercourse has been committed on the prosecutrix. 13. PW-8, Sh. K.N.S. Mahesh has produced birth certificate Ex. PW8/B. According to Ex. PW8/B, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 01.09.1984. 14. PW-9, HC Narayan Singh, has deposed that, he received ruqa Ex. PW9/A, on the basis of which, he registered FIR Ex. PW9/B. 15. PW-10, Jai Singh, has deposed that accused Sukh Diyal in his presence and in the presence of Gauri Das deposed that he could identify the spot of occurrence. The memo to this effect was prepared vide Ex. PW6/A. He has also got the accused medically examined on 21.06.2003. 16. PW-11, Constable Sanjiva, has deposed that the prosecutrix was medically examined on 21.06.2003. The doctor handed over to her two sealed parcels allegedly containing clothes etc. She deposited the same with Narain Lai, the then MHC of Police Station, Uduipur. On 23.06.2003, the prosecutrix was again medically examined by the doctor. The doctor handed over to her one sealed parcel alongwith M.L.C. and one closed envelope which were handed over and deposited by her with Narain Lal, the then MHC of Police Station, Udaipur. 17. PW-12, HC Surender Kumar, has deposed about the manner in which the vehicle bearing taxi No. HP-01-1064, was impounded. 18. PW-13, Tashi Dorje has deposed that on 26.06.2003, Narain Lal, the then MHC handed over to her five sealed parcels allegedly containing case property vide RC No. 18/21. He deposited the same in FSL, Bharari. The case property was deposited by him in FSL, Bharari on 30.06.2003. He returned on 05.07.2003. He deposited the RC alongwith receipt with MHC Narain Lal at Police Station, Udaipur. 19. PW-14, Smt. Lal Dei has deposed that she alongwith PW-2, Sumitra and her younger brother Vikas went to Udaipur to purchase household articles. They left for Udaipur from their house at about 3:00 p.m. They made purchases at Udaipur. At 7:00 p.m., they started back on foot to their house from Udaipur. 19. PW-14, Smt. Lal Dei has deposed that she alongwith PW-2, Sumitra and her younger brother Vikas went to Udaipur to purchase household articles. They left for Udaipur from their house at about 3:00 p.m. They made purchases at Udaipur. At 7:00 p.m., they started back on foot to their house from Udaipur. When they reached at place named Mini Manali, a vehicle came from Udaipur side, which was being driven by the accused. They stopped the vehicle. They took lift in the vehicle of the accused up to Salpat Jhula. She alongwith her younger brother Vikas alighted from the vehicle at Salpat Jhula, but Sumitra did not get down from the said vehicle and stated that she had forgotten her clothes in the bazaar and had to bring the clothes. PW-2 Sumitra returned in the vehicle and she alongwith her brother proceeded to their house. She was declared hostile. However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted her signatures on Ex. PW9/A and recovery memo Ex. PW1/A. According to her, she was made to sign on blank papers. She has denied the suggestion that accused Sukh Diyal forcibly Lifted PW-2, Sumitra Devi in his vehicle and took her from Salpat Jhula and committed rape upon her. She has further admitted that she has purchased clothes for her brother Vikas on that day. She also admitted that the accused came in gipsy and stopped the same at Mini Manali where they were proceeding on foot. She has denied the suggestion that PW-2, Sumitra was recovered from the quarter of Sukh Diyal in her presence and in the presence of Bimla. However, she has admitted her signatures on Ex. PW1/A. The memo was firstly signed by PW-3 Bimla Devi and thereafter she signed the same. In her cross-examination, she has stated that Sumitra (PW-2) and accused did not talk between Mini Manali and Salpat Jhula. She further deposed that Sumitra had not disclosed to her on the way that she has forgotten the purchased articles. They were sitting together. Her brother was sitting by the side of driver. She has also admitted that PW-2 Sumitra has not purchased any articles. She has not asked Sumitra as to why she was returning back because nothing had been purchased by her. 20. The matter was investigated by PW-15, SI Doglu Ram. Sumitra (PW-2) was recovered vide memo Ex. Her brother was sitting by the side of driver. She has also admitted that PW-2 Sumitra has not purchased any articles. She has not asked Sumitra as to why she was returning back because nothing had been purchased by her. 20. The matter was investigated by PW-15, SI Doglu Ram. Sumitra (PW-2) was recovered vide memo Ex. PW1/A. She was handed over on sapurdari to PW-1 Bimla-Devi. He prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of prosecutrix Ex. PW16/A. He also prepared the site plan of the place from where the prosecutrix was kidnapped vide Ex. PW16/B. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW16/C by visiting the place below the helipad at Udaipur where rape was committed. 21. PW-16, Sh. Narayan Dass, has deposed that accused was his tenant for two years at a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. 22. PW-18, Dr. Monika Sharma has deposed that she has examined the accused and has issued MLC Ex. PW18/B. 23. In the present case, the most material witnesses are PW-1, Bimla Devi, PW-2, prosecutrix, PW-7, Dr. Giari Thakur and PW-17, Dr. Shruti. PW-14, Smt. Lal Dei has been declared hostile. It is evident from the statement of prosecutrix that she has gone to Udaipur bazaar in the company of PW-14, Lal Dei and her brother Vikas. They were coming back on foot and at place called Mini Manali, the accused came in his vehicle. He initially dropped the prosecutrix Lal Dei and Vikas. However, thereafter, he dragged the prosecutrix in his vehicle. He went towards helipad. According to PW-2, the accused committed rape on her twice. She also cried when she was dragged to the vehicle and also at the time of committing of rape. However, since it was dark, nobody came to her rescue. She has denied the suggestion, as noticed above, that she has gone with the accused voluntarily. It has also come on records that mouth of the prosecutrix was gagged. 24. Mr. Rameshwar Shanna, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the accused by gagging the month of the prosecutrix with one hand could not drive the vehicle with one hand to reach the helipad. The distance between the place where the prosecutrix was kidnapped/abducted and the helipad is 1-1/2 kms. 24. Mr. Rameshwar Shanna, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the accused by gagging the month of the prosecutrix with one hand could not drive the vehicle with one hand to reach the helipad. The distance between the place where the prosecutrix was kidnapped/abducted and the helipad is 1-1/2 kms. In view of this, there was no difficulty for the accused to drive the vehicle towards helipad, even if he has to drive the vehicle with one hand. The statement of PW-2 is also supported by PW-1, Bimla Devi. According to her, she in the company of PW-14, Lal Dei and her brother Karam Lal, had gone in search of Sumitra at Udaipur. They have found the prosecutrix in the house of accused. The sapurdari of the prosecutrix was handed over to her. 25. PW-14, though has been declared hostile, but she has admitted that she alongwith PW-2, prosecutrix and her brother Vikas had gone to Udaipur to purchase household articles. She has also stated that they made purchasing at Udaipur. They started on foot to their house from Udaipur. When they reached at place named Mini Manali, a vehicle came from Udaipur side, which was being driven by the accused. They stopped the vehicle. They took lift in the vehicle of the accused up to Salpat. Jhula. Initially, she has deposed that the prosecutrix has gone back on the pretext that she has forgotten her clothes, but in her cross-examination, she has admitted that the prosecutrix has not purchased any articles. Thus, there was no occasion for the prosecutrix to go with the accused. Though she has been declared hostile, but she has admitted her signatures on Ex. PW9/A as well as on recovery memo Ex. PW1/A. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix has not told her during journey from Mini Manali to Salpat Jhula that she has forgotten her articles. The place from where the prosecutrix was abducted/kidnapped, has been identified by the accused. 26. According to the final opinion given by PW-17, Dr. Shruti after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner of FSL Junga, i.e. Ex. PW7/A, is that the prosecutrix has undergone sexual intercourse recently. She has examined the prosecutrix on 21.06.2003. Since she was undergoing menstrual period, she was re-examined on 23.06.2003. She has also received injuries. She has noticed scratches on buttocks. Shruti after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner of FSL Junga, i.e. Ex. PW7/A, is that the prosecutrix has undergone sexual intercourse recently. She has examined the prosecutrix on 21.06.2003. Since she was undergoing menstrual period, she was re-examined on 23.06.2003. She has also received injuries. She has noticed scratches on buttocks. She has also opined that vaginal orifice allowed passage of single finger. 27. As per Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW8/B, age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years. 28. Mr. Rameshwar Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that there is some variance in the statements of prosecution witnesses about the timing when the prosecutrix, Lal Dei and Vikas left for Udaipur. These are minor discrepancies. The prosecutrix and the witnesses belong to remote area of the State of Himachal Pradesh and minor discrepancies in their statements are bound to happen. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was kidnapped/confined by the accused and he has committed forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix. 29. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Alias Chinee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191 have held that the statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and the Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Their Lordships have held as under: 9. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658 , this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of sexual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's (sic) ust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under:-- 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. 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 levelled 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 on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of 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. 10. In State of U.P. v. Pappu @ Yunus and another, AIR 2005 SC 1248 , this Court held that even in a case where it is shown that the girl is a girl of easy virtue or a girl habituated to sexual intercourse, it may not be a ground to absolve the accused from the charge of rape. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the Court to absolve the accused. It has to be established that there was consent by her for that particular occasion. Absence of injury on the prosecutrix may not be a factor that leads the Court to absolve the accused. This Court further held that there can be conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and in case, the Court is not satisfied with the version of the prosecutrix, it can seek other evidence, direct or circumstantial, by which it may get assurance of her testimony. The Court held as under :-- It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the Court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice, would do. 11. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, AIR 1996 SC 1393 , this Court held that in cases involving sexual harassment, molestation etc. the Court is duty bound to deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of a prosecutrix should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The Court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in. The Court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in. filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof The Court observed as under:-- The Court overlooked the situation in which a poor helpless minor girl had found herself in the company of three desperate young men who were threatening her and preventing her from raising any alarm. Again, if the investigating officer did not conduct the investigation properly or was negligent in not being able to trace out the driver or the car, how can that become a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix? The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of the prosecutrix.... 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.... Seeking corroboration of her statement before replying upon the same as a rule, in such cases, amounts to adding insult to injury.... Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is riot a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. **** The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations. 12. In State of Orissa v. Thakara Besra and another, AIR 2002 SC 1963 , this Court held that rape is not mere a physical assault, rather it often distracts the whole personality of the victim. The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and, therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witnesses had not seen the commission of the offence. 13. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 622 , this Court held that there is no legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if her evidence inspires confidence and there is absence of circumstances which militate against her veracity. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 9 , placing reliance on earlier judgment in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan. 14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The Court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Consequently, this Court will not interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 11.7.2013 to serve the sentence.