ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant namely, Manjanu Mandal @ Majnu Mandal @ Majanu Mandal has been convicted under section 376(g) IPC and sentenced to R.I for Ten years. 2. Two persons namely, Majanu Mandal and Sanatan Mahato were sent-up for trial on the charge under section 376 IPC. 3. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor states that the co-convict, namely, Sanatan Mahato did not prefer an appeal against the judgment of his conviction in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2000. The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the affidavit dated 30.07.2019 filed on behalf the Jail Superintendent, L.N.J.P., Central Jail, Hazaribagh, to submit that the co-convict, namely, Sanatan Mahato has served the sentence inflicted upon him in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2000. 4. During the trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; the victim lady has been examined as P.W.6. 5. The victim lady was medically examined, however, the doctor who has prepared the injury report has not been produced during the trial. The injury report of the victim lady has, however, been tendered in evidence vide exhibit-5, without objection. 6. The prosecution witnesses, namely, Farid Sai-P.W.1 and Jalalauddin-P.W.2 have turned hostile and the prosecution witnesses, namely, Indu Sai-P.W.3 and Ratan Majhi-P.W.4 have been tendered for cross-examination. They are the co-villagers of the victim lady. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the evidence of the victim lady-P.W.6, her husband-P.W.8 and her Fufi mother-in-law-P.W.5 to hold that the accused persons were guilty for the offence under section 376 IPC. 8. By now it is well-accepted that testimony of a victim of rape is sufficient to record conviction of an accused under section 376 IPC, but then, it is also well-accepted that testimony of the victim is not taken as a gospel truth. Normally a victim of rape would not implicate a person due to social stigma and loss of honour and, therefore, testimony of a victim of rape is generally accepted as true. However, there are exceptions to this unwritten rule regarding truthfulness of testimony of a victim of rape. In “State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary” reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2256, the Supreme Court has observed thus : “26. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. In “State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Pankaj Chaudhary” reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2256, the Supreme Court has observed thus : “26. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 ]. It is well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. [State v. N.K. The accused (2000) 5 SCC 30 ]. 9. In the present case, it is the prosecution's stand that the victim lady was examined by the doctor, however, the doctor has not been produced during the trial. The injury report of the victim lady would reveal that no sign of rape has been found by the doctor. The injury report records that no spermatozoa dead or alive has been found on the person of P.W.6. It further reveals that no injury over her genital area has been found. On her own saying, she was thrashed on the ground by the appellant and the co-convict, namely, Sanatan Mahato, however, no sign of any external bodily injury has been found by the doctor who has clinically examined her. And, the chemical examination report on vaginal swab has not been produced during the trial. Above all, the victim lady in her cross-examination admits that before the occurrence she has not seen Majanu Mandal (para-8) and the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph no. 7 of the judgment under appeal has recorded that P.W.5 has admitted that she didn't know Majanu Mandal prior to the incident. 10. Evidently, complicity of the appellant along with the co-convict, namely, Sanatan Mahato in the alleged occurrence is doubtful. 7 of the judgment under appeal has recorded that P.W.5 has admitted that she didn't know Majanu Mandal prior to the incident. 10. Evidently, complicity of the appellant along with the co-convict, namely, Sanatan Mahato in the alleged occurrence is doubtful. The attending circumstances, the injury report of the victim lady and the manner of occurrence as described by her make her testimony doubtful. We are of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid facts on the basis of the testimony of the victim lady, which does not inspire confidence, conviction of the appellant under section 376(g) IPC is unsustainable and, accordingly, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of R.I for Ten years and fine of Rs. 5000/-both dated 22.12.2001 passed against the appellant by st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2000 are set-aside. 11. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Accordingly, the appellant who is on bail is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him. 12. In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 44 of 2002 is allowed. 13. The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh, the learned Amicus and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned Public Prosecutor. 14. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bill(s). 15. Let lower-court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith. 16. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned and the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee through 'FAX'.