JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. The Appellant was convicted under Section 376 (1), I.P.C. (Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013) and he was sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand), in default, to suffer further period of R.I. for three months. Hence this Appeal. 2. The occurrence happened in the wee hours of the morning, at about 4.00 A.M. on 20.04.2013. F.I.R. was lodged in Mahila P.S., Bhubaneswar on 26.04.2013. Investigation was taken up and on 26.04.2013 itself the Appellant was arrested. The victim’s mother (P.W.9) is the informant in this case. The F.I.R. was scribed by her son-in-law Siba Charan Das (P.W.2). 3. The gist of the prosecution case, as found from the record, is as follows :- The victim (P.W.1), who is major, woke up early at about 4.00 A.M. on 20.04.2013 and went outside to urinate. At that time, her mother (P.W.9) had already woken up and she had already switched on the electric light illuminating the house. The victim (P.W.1) did not return home for about 10-20 minutes. The victim’s mother (P.W.9) searched for her and also informed about the fact of victim’s missing, to her husband (P.W.4) immediately. P.W.4 and P.W.9 (both the parents) along with their youngest son and youngest daughter (both not examined) searched for the victim in the nearby places, but in vain. The victim’s father (P.W.4) thereafter gave information about missing of the victim to his son-in-law Siba Charan Das (P.W.2), who has married his (P.W.4’s) middle daughter Banita (P.W.3). Both P.Ws.2 and 3 then reached in the house of the victim immediately. All of them started searching for the victim at different places. When they were going towards Mayfair Hotel, Bhubaneswar, they found the Appellant (accused) coming out of a sub-lane, and the Appellant ran away seeing all of them. After a while, they saw the victim (P.W.1) coming from the same sub-lane. On being confronted, the victim (P.W.1) said that the Appellant called her to show a material and then forcibly brought her to a latrine at a distance of about ten minutes walk from their house, and inside the latrine the Appellant asked her to remove her panty. She refused. Then the Appellant forcibly removed her panty, squeezed her breasts and inserted his penis into her anus repeatedly. She refused. Then the Appellant forcibly removed her panty, squeezed her breasts and inserted his penis into her anus repeatedly. The Appellant also threatened her to keep quiet and further threatened her not to disclose the matter before anybody, or else he would kill her. After hearing about the incident, all the family members of the victim, i.e. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 while were returning to their house, they found the mother of the Appellant plucking flowers in front of her house. They all complained before her (mother of the Appellant) about the indecent act of the Appellant. She (mother of the Appellant) called them inside her house and confronted the matter to the Appellant (her son). The Appellant denied to have committed any such act. Thereafter the local gentries came to know about the incident, out of whom P.Ws.5, 6, 8 and 10 are important. They told the victim’s family not to report the matter to the Police, as they are taking up the matter for an amicable settlement. Thereafter, in the house of the Appellant, a meeting was held; the Appellant (accused) initially refused about any such incident, but subsequently he admitted his guilt. The matter was reduced into writing in presence of the Appellant and all the gentries present in the meeting. Days passed by, but no action was taken by the local gentries. P.W.4 (father of the victim) then went and met one of the local gentries, with whom the written ‘Ekrarnama’ was there; he (the gentleman) said that, they cannot do anything in the matter and he (P.W.4) should report the matter to the Police. However, giving some other reasons regarding the health condition of the victim, the delay of lodging the F.I.R. on 26.04.2013 has been explained. 4. On registration of the case, the Investigating Officer (P.W.17) took up the investigation; she got the victim girl examined by the Medical Officer (P.W.14), whom P.W.13, a lady Constable along with others had escorted to the hospital; she (P.W.17) seized the wearing apparels of the victim girl, her vaginal swab collected by the Medical Officer and other incriminating articles. She also got the Appellant examined by the Medical Officer (P.W.16) and P.W.12, the lady Constable along with others was directed to escort the Appellant for his medical examination. She also got the Appellant examined by the Medical Officer (P.W.16) and P.W.12, the lady Constable along with others was directed to escort the Appellant for his medical examination. She requisitioned the services of the Scientific Officer (P.W.15), who visited the spot latrine and submitted his report. She also seized the wearing apparels and materials like semen and sample pubic hair of the Appellant on production by the escorting Constable. On completion of investigation, the I.O. filed charge-sheet under Section 376 (1), I.P.C. against the accused-Appellant. 5. Prosecution has examined 17 witnesses to prove the charge. Almost all the witnesses have been introduced in the preceding paragraphs. Out of them, P.W.1 is the victim girl, P.W.3 is her sister, P.W.4 is her father, P.W.9 (informant) is her mother. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the victim, being the husband of her younger sister (P.W.3). P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, who are independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case. P.W.7 Sita Mohanta, out of the aforesaid witnesses, is the owner of the house, to which the spot latrine is attached being situated outside the house. P.W.11 was a tenant in the house of the victim, P.Ws.12 and 13 are the lady constables, who escorted the Appellant and the victim girl respectively to the hospital for their medical examination, P.Ws.14 and 16 are the Medical Officers, who had examined the victim and the Appellant respectively, P.W.15 is the Scientific Officer, who had made the spot visit of the latrine and P.W.17 is the I.O. 6. The defence plea is one of complete denial, and no evidence was adduced by the defence. 7. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and the corroborative evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 9 and 11, has returned the finding of guilt against the Appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses; delay in lodging the F.I.R. in view of the contradictory explanation for delay creates doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence tendered by the witnesses; and, the finding reached by the learned trial court is otherwise perverse and illegal. 9. Learned Additional Govt. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses; delay in lodging the F.I.R. in view of the contradictory explanation for delay creates doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence tendered by the witnesses; and, the finding reached by the learned trial court is otherwise perverse and illegal. 9. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that, it is the trite law that, even on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of a victim of rape, conviction can be made, as the victim is at par with an injured witness of the crime. 10. The finding of guilt against the appellant was returned by the learned Court below on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and corroborative evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 9 and 11. P.W.1 is the victim. It is not a matter of dispute that she is major. She (P.W.1) ipse dixit has testified that she is aged about 28 years. Victim’s mother (P.W.9) and her father (P.W.4) have testified that the victim suffers from epilepsy, whereas P.W.11, who is a tenant in the house of P.W.4, has testified that the victim lady is an epilepsy patient, her IQ is low and she is in the habit of repeating words. The Medical Officer (P.W.14), who had examined the victim girl on police requisition, has testified that the general mental condition of the patient (victim) is subnormal and there is history of epilepsy and the victim was responding the questions very slowly. In her cross-examination she has further testified that the victim lady was not lunatic, but her IQ was subnormal. She has further testified that the victim lady was capable of understanding the questions and was responding the same very lately. According to her, no medical papers were produced before her by the parents of the victim as supportive documents to show her treatment for epilepsy. 11. In this case, the trial court having failed to record about the demeanour of the victim (P.W.1) while recording her evidence, has failed grossly in view of such mental state of the victim, as testified by the aforesaid witnesses. Had the trial court recorded the demeanour of the victim, it could have thrown much light on the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses. Had the trial court recorded the demeanour of the victim, it could have thrown much light on the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses. The Medical Officer (P.W.14) and P.W.11 (who is a tenant in the house of the victim) have testified that the victim has low IQ. No step has been taken by the Investigating Officer to get the victim further examined medically to find out her mental age. It is found from the evidence of P.W.1 that, she has been cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, as she did not support the prosecution case on some aspects. The evidence of such a witness, against whom there are materials to show that her IQ is low and there are further materials to show that she was under the control of her family members for quite sometime before her first statement was recorded, cannot be made the sole basis of conviction unless there are corroboration in material particulars. 12. Coming to the spot of occurrence of the case, it is a latrine belonging to a person not known either to the victim or the appellant. It is situated at a distance of about 5-10 minutes’ walk from the house of the victim. It is situated outside the house. According to the prosecution witnesses, the door of the latrine was damaged and the appellant took the victim inside the latrine to do the act, as alleged against him. P.W.2, who is the brother-in-law of the victim, being the husband of her younger sister, is stated to have seen the appellant coming out of the latrine. P.W.3, in paragraph-3 of her evidence, has also testified that she saw the spot latrine after coming to know about the incident from the victim. P.W.3 has testified that the victim led her and her mother (P.W.9) to the spot latrine, the door of which was damaged to some extent. In paragraph-12 of her evidence, P.W.3 has given the description of the latrine, i.e. about its length and breadth, etc. P.W.4, in his evidence, has testified that he had not gone to the spot latrine. P.W.9, in paragraph-3 of her evidence has testified that the latrine was in a deteriorated condition. She, in paragraph-11 of her evidence has testified that, she (P.W.9) along with her daughter (P.W.3) and the victim (P.W.1) had gone to the spot latrine. 13. P.W.4, in his evidence, has testified that he had not gone to the spot latrine. P.W.9, in paragraph-3 of her evidence has testified that the latrine was in a deteriorated condition. She, in paragraph-11 of her evidence has testified that, she (P.W.9) along with her daughter (P.W.3) and the victim (P.W.1) had gone to the spot latrine. 13. Very designedly the I.O. (P.W.17) has not testified anything about the nature of the door of the latrine. In paragraph-9 of her cross-examination, the I.O. has testified that she has not mentioned about the nature of the roof of the spot latrine and that she has not mentioned about the nature of wall of the spot latrine and regarding the nature of the door of the latrine. According to the I.O. (P.W.17), the spot latrine was located to the backside of the house, which was under occupation of one Ranjan Mohanta, being intervened by a narrow lane. The spot latrine is located close to the house under occupation of Ranjan Mohanta at a distance of about 5 to 7 feet towards the backside of his house. Again she has testified that, a damaged house and cowshed are located near the vicinity of the spot latrine. P.W.7 – Sita Mohanta is the wife of Ranjan Mohanta. She however did not support the prosecution case. But, it is her specific assertion in the cross-examination that the entrance door of the spot latrine has never been damaged by any person at any point of time, and immediately after every use, the door of the latrine is used to be locked instantly. The Scientific Officer (P.W.15), who had visited the spot latrine on police requisition, has also testified nothing about the door condition of the spot latrine. All the discrepancies so far as the spot is concerned, make the spot itself doubtful, especially in view of the positive assertion by P.W.7 to the effect that the latrine used to be locked instantly after every use. The damaged house or the cowshed in the vicinity of the latrine, which were in open condition, might be the spot, but such inference cannot be drawn when the prosecution’s assertion is specific to the effect that the incident took place inside the latrine. The damaged house or the cowshed in the vicinity of the latrine, which were in open condition, might be the spot, but such inference cannot be drawn when the prosecution’s assertion is specific to the effect that the incident took place inside the latrine. But the evidence however shows that the use of the latrine for commission of the offence, as alleged, could not have been possible, as it was in locked condition and there is nothing on record to show that the door of the latrine was in damage condition to enable a person to open the same. 14. Now, let me find out the corroborative evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 9 and 11, as adduced in the case. P.W.4 is the father of the victim and P.W.9 is the mother of the victim. The occurrence happened at about 4.00 A.M. in the early morning. When P.W.9 did not find the victim (her daughter) returning home from outside where she had gone to ease, she (P.W.9), her husband (P.W.4), youngest son and youngest daughter (both not examined) started searching for the victim. They searched her for about 10 minutes and at about 4.10 A.M. P.W.4 conveyed the matter to P.W.2 (his son-in-law) over telephone. P.Ws.2 and 3 reached immediately within ten minutes and thereafter all of them continued the search. According to P.W.2, in paragraph-2 of his evidence, he saw the accused coming out of the latrine with intent to flee, and thereafter the victim came out of that latrine. In paragraph-3, he has testified that the victim narrated before her mother (P.W.9) that the appellant ravished her (victim) from front side as well as from backside. P.W.3, who was along with P.Ws.2, 4 and 9, in paragraph-2 of her evidence has testified that, “after covering a distance of about 20 meters we found that the appellant was running away from a narrow lane and we found the victim coming out of the same lane.” P.W.4, in paragraph-7 of his evidence, has testified that, he saw the appellant from a distance of 200 meters when there was still darkness at that time and it was drizzling. He has not stated anything as to whether the accused was running away or he walk passed them. He has however stated nothing about the spot latrine. He has not stated anything as to whether the accused was running away or he walk passed them. He has however stated nothing about the spot latrine. P.W.9, in paragraph-1 of her evidence has stated that, on their way they found the appellant coming away from a narrow lane. In paragraph-2, she has testified that the accused-appellant then passed by their side and after 1-2 minutes the victim passed through that lane. All the witnesses have stated different things as to how they spotted the accused-appellant. According to P.Ws.3 and 4, it was still darkness at that time, as the weather was cloudy and it was drizzling. P.W.2 saw the appellant coming out of the latrine to flee, followed by the victim. P.W.3 saw the appellant running away from a narrow lane. P.W.4, though he was with P.Ws.2, 3 and 9, has testified to have seen the appellant from a distance of 200 meters. He has however not stated that the accused-appellant was running away or walking away. P.W.9 has testified that she saw the appellant coming away from a narrow lane and he walk passed by their side. There is no cohesion in the evidence of these four witnesses regarding the demeanour of the appellant to draw any adverse inference. One witness is improving the story on another. The discrepancies strike at the very root of the prosecution case that, all the four witnesses saw the appellant running away from a lane and thereafter they saw the victim coming out of the same lane. It becomes doubtful as to whether P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 9 were searching together for the victim and as to whether they at all saw the appellant. 15. So far as the occurrence is concerned, the victim herself is stated to have raised cry while the appellant dragged her by holding her hand. Nobody has heard any such cry, though P.W.9 was already awaken by that time and the lanes and by-lanes passes through different house as per the description of the witnesses regarding the area. So far as the act and time is concerned, the victim has alleged that the appellant forced her to remove her panty; when she refused, he himself forcibly removed her panty. He squeezed her breasts and thereafter inserted his penis into her anus. So far as the act and time is concerned, the victim has alleged that the appellant forced her to remove her panty; when she refused, he himself forcibly removed her panty. He squeezed her breasts and thereafter inserted his penis into her anus. According to the victim, the floor of the latrine was wet and all these sexual acts happened in standing position. The witnesses namely P.Ws.2, 3 and 9 have tried to improve the story by saying that the victim told before them that the appellant ravished her from the front side as well as from the backside. According to the victim, they remained inside the latrine for about 5 to 10 minutes. The I.O. (P.W.17) has testified that the victim has not stated before her regarding the pain she experienced after the appellant inserted his penis into her anus. Though delay in lodging of the F.I.R. is not detrimental in such a case, but in the case at hand the incident was made known to the public in the area within minutes after the occurrence, but the F.I.R. was lodged after six days of the occurrence, awaiting compromise. There is improvement by P.Ws.2, 3 and 9 so far as allegation of rape on the victim from the front side is concerned. So far as the allegation of sodomy is concerned, P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.11, who is a tenant in the house of P.W.4. The victim, who is having a subnormal mental condition, was there in the hands of her family members for quite a sometime before the matter was disclosed to P.W.11 at about 7.30 P.M. In the meantime many things had already happened, a meeting had already held and the matter was made known to public, i.e. the neighbours and the gentries of the locality. A girl of such a mental state like P.W.1 is prone to be tutored and I am convinced to return such a finding in view of improvements made by P.Ws.2, 3 and 9 so far as allegation of vaginal rape is concerned, though the victim is silent about that. Sodomy is also not possible in a standing position, as the anus is neither capacious nor lubricated like vagina to allow entry of the penis easily. Sodomy is also not possible in a standing position, as the anus is neither capacious nor lubricated like vagina to allow entry of the penis easily. But the victim being a lady of subnormal mental condition, must be telling some truth like a child, and the allegation of sodomy in the context of the case appears to be a tutored come out. The appellant must have dealt with the victim indecently, which she has narrated before P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 9 and they have tried to improve upon the things for the reasons best known to them. 16. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid aspects in close circumspection, I am of the considered view that, neither vaginal normal sexual act has been committed by the appellant on the victim. But, so far as the allegation of the victim regarding squeezing of her breasts, etc. by the appellant are concerned, a clear case under Section 354, I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is modified to one under Section 354, I.P.C. The appellant was arrested on 26.04.2013 and by now he has suffered imprisonment for about three years and eight months. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to suffer the period of imprisonment he has already undergone, towards punishment for offence under Section 354, I.P.C. Taking into consideration the age of the appellant and the circumstances under which the alleged act came to be committed and especially the financial state of the appellant, I do not thing it proper to levy any amount of fine as punishment. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.