JUDGMENT Ajay Rastogi, J. The instant appeal u/Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the convict-appellant against the judgment dt. 17.8.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar convicting the appellant for offence u/Sec.451/376(1) IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for another 8 months. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, PW-1 filed ejahar Ext.1 with the Officer in charge of Kanchanpur Police Station on 29.11.2015 at 5 o’clock in the evening to the effect that on 28.11.2015 at about 7 p.m. the accused-appellant entered her hut by opening the “beng” of the door (wooden lock) and she was alone with her son aged 5 years and at that time her husband was at Satnala for collecting his wages for cutting paddy and taking opportunity of her loneliness the accused-appellant caught hold of her and gagged her by muffler and led her on bed and forcibly committed rape on her and after committing rape he gave her Rs.100/- she threw the money on the floor and he threatened her not to divulge the matter to anyone, else he would kill her husband and son. The delay was caused in lodging the ejahar in fear of social stigma. 3. The Officer in charge of Kanchanpur Police Station received the ejahar and registered Kanchanpur P.S. case no.2015 KCP 0112 u/Sec.457/376(1)/506 of IPC and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant u/Sec.457/ 376(1)/506 of IPC. 4. After having received the charge-sheet, learned SDJM, Kanchanpur took cognizance of offence punishable u/Sec.457/ 376(1)/506 of IPC and the case being exclusively triable by the court of Session committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. 5. On commitment of the case, charge against the accused-appellant was framed u/Sec.457/376(1) of IPC which was read over and explained to the accused-appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and desired to stand for trial. In all 10 witnesses in the calendar of witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused-appellant and the accused-appellant was also examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and his case, according to him, was of false implication. In all 10 witnesses in the calendar of witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused-appellant and the accused-appellant was also examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and his case, according to him, was of false implication. The learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence on record held him guilty and convicted him for offence punishable u/Sec.451 and 376(1) IPC. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused-appellant preferred the instant appeal. 7. Counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a matured lady of 34 years and known to the accused-appellant and other than the statement of the prosecutrix there is no other iota of evidence on record which could corroborate her version and further submits that conviction cannot be based on the sole deposition of the prosecutrix (PW-1). That apart, the statement of the prosecutrix suffers from material discrepancies and on medical examination of the prosecutrix, no physical injury was found on her private parts. That apart, prosecutrix had given a most improbable and unacceptable version to which no credence can be attached. 8. The alleged incident, according to the prosecution, is of 28.11.2015 at about 7 p.m. in the evening and the Police Station is hardly at a distance of 30 meters from the place where the prosecutrix resides and her husband Kripesh Nath (PW-2) came after half an hour of the alleged incident at about 7.30 p.m. on 28.11.2015 and she narrated him the alleged incident after he came across of Rs.100/-but still the written complaint was lodged by her on the next day on 29.11.2015 at about 5 o’clock in the evening and that apart, the doctor (PW-9) who medically examined the prosecutrix on 29.11.2015 at about 6-45 p.m. has deposed in her statement that there was no mark of injury on the body of the victim and there was no swelling, redness, tenderness, scratches, abrasion, bruises found in the private part or any other part of the victim and she was confirmed that there was no penetration within 72 hours as opined in the medical report as Exbt.2/1. 9. 9. Even the Investigating Officer (PW-10) also deposed that the wearing apparel of the victim (petticoat) was seized from her house on 29.11.2015 (Exbt.M.O.-2) and he also collected the vaginal swab of the victim as indicated in the seizure memo Exhibit-7 and also collected the penis swab of the accused-appellant (Exhibit-8) and sent the swab to FSL but no seminal stain or spermatozoa human origin could be detected from any of the exhibits and as per the statement of the Investigating Officer charge-sheet was filed because in the medical report (Exibit-2/1) it was opined that her hymen was ruptured without taking note of the fact that the prosecutrix was a married woman of 34 years having a son of 5 years. 10. That apart, there were five different huts nearby the hut of the prosecutrix where the families were residing and none of them heard any hue or cry of the prosecutrix. As per the hand sketch map (Exhibit-5) the distance of the Police Station was nearly half a km. from the house of the prosecutrix. Complaint was made after 24 hours and in the given circumstances, counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of any corroborative evidence on record which could support the statement of the prosecutrix in isolation, no credence could be attached to her statement and the appellant in the given facts and circumstances has been falsely enrobed in the crime. 11. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor has supported the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge under the impugned judgment and submits that there were sufficient materials on record and the convict-appellant has rightly been held guilty and punished under the impugned judgment dt.17.8.2016, needs no further interference. 12. We have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 13. It is settled by the Apex Court and consisting view that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 14. 13. It is settled by the Apex Court and consisting view that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration and accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. 14. Indisputably, in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in the criminal jurisprudence. In our considered view, the story of the prosecution in the given facts and circumstances is indeed improbable. 15. Indisputably, the first and foremost witness of the prosecution is the prosecutrix herself and which has been made to be the sole basis to convict the accused-appellant u/Sec.451/376(1) of IPC. In her deposition, PW-1 had narrated that on 28.11.2015 at about 7 o’clock in the evening she was all alone with her minor son of 5 years and her husband went to collect money at Satnala of reaping rice. In the meanwhile, the accused-appellant forcibly caught hold of her and laid her on her own bed and forcibly raped her by pressing her mouth with a muffler and after committing the alleged rape, he handed over Rs.100/-to her which she threw on the floor. It was specifically stated that after half an hour when her husband came and noticed Rs.100/-, she disclosed what happened with her to her husband on 28.11.2015 itself and thereafter she lodged a written ejahar on 29.11.2015 at about 5 p.m. The extract of evidence of PW-1 ad infra:- “After entering into my hut said Rinku forcefully committed rape on me taking me forcefully to my bed by putting pressure on my mouth so that I could not raise any alarm. After committing rape he placed a note of Rs.100/-on my bed asking me not to disclose the incident to anybody or even to my husband. I threw the money on the floor. After half an hour or sometime later when my husband came, he first noticed Rs.100/-. Then I disclosed the matter to my husband.” 16. After committing rape he placed a note of Rs.100/-on my bed asking me not to disclose the incident to anybody or even to my husband. I threw the money on the floor. After half an hour or sometime later when my husband came, he first noticed Rs.100/-. Then I disclosed the matter to my husband.” 16. PW-2, Kripesh Nath (husband of the prosecutrix), stated in his deposition that after he returned back home in the evening at about 7.30 p.m. on the day of incident i.e. on 28.11.2015 his wife reported the incident that the convict-appellant entered into the hut and forcibly laid her on the bed and committed bad works by pressing her mouth. It was done against her will and left behind a sum of Rs.100/- and the incident was narrated by him to the inmates of the house of Shashanka and also his brother Pandab Nath but none of them was examined as prosecution witnesses. 17. PW-3, Smt. Hiranya Nath, is the real sister-in-law of the prosecutrix and the wife of her husband’s elder brother who as per the hand-sketch map (Exhibit-5) is residing near to the house of the prosecutrix who came across the incident when expressed by the prosecutrix in the morning having no information of the alleged incident being happened with the prosecutrix and as per her statement (PW-3) she informed certain females of the locality about the alleged incident having no personal knowledge of the incident. At the same time, as per the hand-sketch map (Exhibit5) in the near vicinity of the hut of the prosecutrix, there are other dwelling houses of Jotish Nath, Pandab Nath and Nripendra Nath marked as ‘C’, ‘D’ & ‘E’ and if there was any semblance of resistance or made any hue and cry that would certainly have attracted the nearby residents who are residing next door to the dwelling house of the victim prosecutrix but none of them were named in the calendar of the prosecution witnesses. 18. 18. The other prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-4, Smt. Arati Nath, PW-5 Smt. Manju Nath, PW-6 Sri Sushital Nath and PW-7 Smt. Lipika Nath were completely unaware of the incident and Smt. Hiranya Nath (PW-3), who happens to be the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix and wife of elder brother of her husband has informed the other females of the locality and on whose information they were made prosecution witnesses and their statements are recorded as PW-4, 5, 6 & 7 based on hearsay of PW-3. If such statements indeed being made by PW-1, there would have been occasion to go to the Police Station which is at the nearby distance and if at all, there was any semblance of resistance or made hue and cry, that would have attracted the nearby residents who as per the hand-sketch map (Exhibit-5) are residing just to the next door of the dwelling house of the prosecutrix but they were neither interrogated nor shown in the calendar of prosecution witnesses and a written ejahar was lodged after 24 hours of the alleged incident on 29.11.2015 at about 5 p.m. with no semblance of justification being tendered by the prosecution. 19. PW-9, Dr. Pinki Chakma, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 29.11.2015 at about 6.45 p.m. in her medical report (Exhibit-2/1) and also in her statement (PW-9) has specifically opined that there was no mark of injury on the body of the victim and there was no swelling, redness, tenderness, scratches, abrasion, bruises found in the private part or any other part of the victim and was confirmed that no penetration within 72 hours. The extract of evidence of PW-9 ad infra:- “According to her the history of assault took place on 28-11-2015 at about 5 p.m. in the house of the victim. There was no mark of injury on the body of the victim. The hymen was found ruptured (old scar). There was no swelling, reddish tenderness, scratches, abrasion, bruises found in the private part or any other part of the victim. From my report I can say there was no penetration within 72 hours.” The extract opinion in the medical report (Exhibit-2/1) ad infra:- “OPINION (with reason for each conclusion). Hymen ruptured (old scar). There is no swelling, redness, tenderness, scratches, abrasions, bruises, contusions, lacerations, bite mark, fracture seen on victim’s private parts or any other part of the body.” 20. From my report I can say there was no penetration within 72 hours.” The extract opinion in the medical report (Exhibit-2/1) ad infra:- “OPINION (with reason for each conclusion). Hymen ruptured (old scar). There is no swelling, redness, tenderness, scratches, abrasions, bruises, contusions, lacerations, bite mark, fracture seen on victim’s private parts or any other part of the body.” 20. At the same time, the Investigating Officer (PW-10) in his statement has deposed that the wearing apparel (petticoat) of the victim was seized on 29.11.2015 and he also collected the vaginal swab of the victim marked as Exhibit-7 and also the penis swab of the accused-appellant (Exhibit-8) and sent the swab to SFSL but no seminal stain or spermatozoa human origin could be detected in any of the exhibits and according to the Investigating Officer, since in the medical report hymen was found ruptured, he considered the medical report supported the case of the victim prosecutrix and submitted the charge-sheet for the offence u/Sec.457/376(1)/506 of IPC but has not noticed that the prosecutrix was a married woman of 34 years of age having a child of 5 years. The extract of evidence of PW-10 ad infra:- “I also recorded the statement of all the witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. I seized the Rs.100/-allegedly given by the accused and wearing petticoat of the victim on 29/11/2015 on production by the victim from her house. This is the said seizure list. On identification it is marked as Exhibit-4/3. The note was bearing no.7UL966848. Said note is present today in the court. Witness identified this Exhibit-MO- I. This is the said petticoat. Witness identified that Exhibit-MO-II. Medical officer at the time of examination collected vaginal swab of the victim which was also seized by me. This is the said seizure list. On examination it is marked as Exhibit-7. On 30/11/2015 I arrested the accused and also arranged for his examination to know his sexual potentiality and during that time medical officer collected penis swab of accused Rinku Nath and I seized those swab. This is the said seizure list. On identification it is marked as Exhibit-8. On examination it is marked as Exhibit-7. On 30/11/2015 I arrested the accused and also arranged for his examination to know his sexual potentiality and during that time medical officer collected penis swab of accused Rinku Nath and I seized those swab. This is the said seizure list. On identification it is marked as Exhibit-8. I send the swab to SFSL but no seminal stain or spermatozoa human origin could be detected in any of the exhibits that is in the vaginal swab which was marked as Exhibit-A. xxxx xxxx xxxx Since in the medical report hymen was found ruptured, I considered that the medical report supported my case and accordingly I submitted charge sheet against the accused vide charge sheet no.10/16 dated 20/4/2016 u/s 457/376/506 of IPC.” 21. We are of the view that some supporting evidence was essential for the prosecution case to book the accused-appellant for commission of rape. As already mentioned above, the medical evidence does not support the commission of rape and there is no other corroborative evidence on record which may support the statement of the prosecutrix. The present evidence on record failed to satisfy the basic requirement of Sec.375 IPC and it appears from the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) that there was no semblance of any resistance or made any hue and cry that would certainly have attracted the persons who are residing in the nearby huts as it revealed from the hand-sketch map (Exhibit-5) who were deliberately not made the prosecution witnesses and she disclosed the fact to her husband (PW-2) only when he noticed Rs.100/-which the accused-appellant, according to PW-1, left behind after the alleged rape being committed by him. 22. It is true that the version of victim is in great command deserves respect and acceptability but if the same under any circumstances casts some doubt in the mind of the court on the veracity of the victim’s evidence, then it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated version of the victim of rape in isolation. 23. In our considered view, the learned trial Judge committed an error in holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec.451/376(1) of IPC. 24. In the result, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under the impugned judgment dt.17.8.2016. 23. In our considered view, the learned trial Judge committed an error in holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec.451/376(1) of IPC. 24. In the result, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under the impugned judgment dt.17.8.2016. The convict-appellant be released, if not undergoing sentence in any other case. LCR be returned forthwith.