JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also, heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.10.2018/11.10.2018 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh, in Basar Sessions Case No. 783/2012, convicting the appellant under Section 376(1) of the IPC. 3. In the F.I.R. dated 21.12.2010, the 18 year old prosecutrix has alleged that on 19.12.2010, Dinkio Jitu requested her to give him company for n evening walk at Veterinary colony. She accompanied Dinkio Jitu and suddenly they noticed that the appellant was coming towards them. According to the prosecutrix, on seeing the appellant, Dinkio Jitu ran away from the spot. In the meantime, the appellant caught hold of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. It was 4.30 in the evening when the said occurrence took place. The prosecutrix could not inform her guardians and brothers because all of them were not present in the house at that time. Therefore, on 21.12.2010, she had narrated the aforesaid facts. 4. On 22.12.2010, the victim girl was produced before a doctor at Daporijo District Hospital for Medical examination. By that time, the victim had taken several baths and also washed her clothes. The doctor further found that though the body of the victim girl had some superficial abrasions, there was no sign of recent vaginal penetration. The Doctor further found that the victim had an old ruptured hymen. 5. During investigation, Police recovered one wrist watch, one slipper and a black coloured partially torn pyjama from the place of occurrence. On conclusion of investigation, Police filed a Charge-sheet against the appellant. On his appearance before the Trial Court, the charge under Section 376 of the IPC was formally framed against the appellant. The accused denied the charge and hence, the Trial followed. 6. During the Trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7(seven) witnesses, including the Police Investigating Officer, the Medical Officer and the prosecutrix. The appellant examined 2(two) witnesses as defence witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court arrived at the impugned finding. 7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that the appellant was already known to her. The appellant examined 2(two) witnesses as defence witnesses. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court arrived at the impugned finding. 7. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment. The prosecutrix has stated in her evidence that the appellant was already known to her. She has disclosed that at the relevant time of occurrence, she was going to the house of her uncle at veterinary colony at Daporijo. On the way, she met Dinkio Jitu who forcibly took her to an orange orchard on the pretext of plucking oranges. The prosecutrix has stated that before they could reach the orange orchard, the appellant appeared in front of her and on seeing the appellant, Dinkio Jitu left the place. According to the prosecutrix, Dinkio Jitu is a relative of the appellant. The prosecutrix further disclosed that the appellant started to molest her and she had to fight with him for resisting him. She even tried to run away but the appellant had caught hold of her by her hair. The prosecutrix stated that the appellant forcibly carried her into the nearby jungle and laid her on the ground and he started to kiss her. The prosecutrix stated that when the appellant kissed her, she bit his lips and he was bleeding from his lips, thereafter. The prosecutrix stated that she even tried to pick up an empty beer bottle which was lying on the place of occurrence and tried to hit the appellant with that but she could not do that. After a prolonged fight, the prosecutrix got tired and thereafter, the appellant succeeded to commit rape upon her. The prosecutrix stated that she was threatened by the appellant who told her not to disclose the matter to anyone else. On reaching her home, the prosecutrix reported the matter to her elder sister. 8. The 2nd prosecution witness is Dinkio Jitu, who allegedly accompanied the victim girl just prior to the occurrence. He was only 17 years old then. He has stated in his evidence that the appellant is his brother-in-law. Dinkio Jitu disclosed that on 19.12.2010 in the evening, he and the appellant were going back from their orange orchard near veterinary colony and then they met the prosecutrix on the road. Dinkio Jitu also disclosed that after meeting the prosecutrix on the road, he and the appellant together went home. Dinkio Jitu disclosed that on 19.12.2010 in the evening, he and the appellant were going back from their orange orchard near veterinary colony and then they met the prosecutrix on the road. Dinkio Jitu also disclosed that after meeting the prosecutrix on the road, he and the appellant together went home. According to Dinkio Jitu, after 2/3 days he came to know that the prosecutrix had lodged one F.I.R. against the appellant. Dinkio Jitu has stated further that he also gave his statement before the Police. The witness Dinkio Jitu was declared hostile because he had resiled form his earlier statement, made before the Police. The Public Prosecutor cross-examined him. Before the Public Prosecutor, the witness Dinkio Jitu admitted that the prosecutrix is his neighbour. He, however, denied the suggestion that he had requested the prosecutrix to come with him to pluck oranges. He also denied the suggestion that on seeing the appellant, he left the victim girl. 9. The 3rdprosecution witness is the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix. He proved his report as P. Ext. 2. The 4th prosecution witness is the Police Investigating Officer who spoke about the Investigation. The 5th prosecution witness Tadik Dobu, is a witness to the seizure of the wrist watch, one hanky and one leather chappal, allegedly belonging to the appellant and one black coloured pyjama, also allegedly, belonging to the prosecutrix. It may be stated that the prosecutrix is the sister of this witness. The 6th prosecution witness is also a witness to the seizure. The 7 thprosecution witness is a Police Officer and he had seized the aforesaid article from the place of occurrence which is 50m away from the tri-junction main road between Daporijo and Ziro, on the lower side of the main road. 10. The defence witnesses in this case are Smt. Yami Nidak and Sri Tayu Natam. The witness, Smt. Yami Nidak, knows the appellant and the prosecutrix. She has stated that on 20.12.2010, while she was in her house in the morning, she heard loud voices of a woman in the house of Tania Dabu. The witness, subsequently, came to know that the wife of Tamik Bame had come to the house of Tania Dabu and complained that the prosecutrix was having an extra-marital affair with her husband Tamik Bame. This witness further stated that the said lady even attempted to assault the prosecutrix at that time. The witness, subsequently, came to know that the wife of Tamik Bame had come to the house of Tania Dabu and complained that the prosecutrix was having an extra-marital affair with her husband Tamik Bame. This witness further stated that the said lady even attempted to assault the prosecutrix at that time. According to the witness Yami Nidak, she and other neighbours intervened and sent away the said women. According to this defence witness, the wife of Tamik Bame had caught him red handed with the prosecutrix, when both were sleeping together in the house of Tania Dabu. 11. The 2nd defence witness is Tayu Natam. He is aged about 60 years and he is the Gaon Bura. He has stated that on 23.12.2010, Sri Tode Sogum verbally a complained before him and requested him to hold a local kebang. According to this witness, Sri Tode Sogum told him that on 20.12.2020, Tamik Bame's wife came to the house of Tania Dabu, where the prosecutrix was having an illicit relationship with her husband. The witness Tayu Natam stated that the prosecutrix is the sister of Sri Tode Sogum. The defence witness further stated that the Keba was requested to be held to sort out the dispute involving the prosecutrix and the appellant. This witness further told that he asked Sri Tode Sogum to file a written complaint but he did not do so. 12. All the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses are examined by the respective counsels. The prosecutrix denied the suggestion that she was having a love affair with the appellant. She also denied the suggestion that she was never raped by the appellant. The prosecutrix told the defence counsel that if she was simply molested only, she would not have lodged any complaint, thereby putting her prestige at risk. 13. The prosecution witness Dinkio Jitu was not cross-examined by the defence counsel. 14. There is nothing relevant in the cross-examination portion of the evidence of the Doctor, who examined the prosecutrix during investigation. Similarly, the crossexamination portion of evidence of the Investigating Officer also does not have any material for an elaborate discussion. In fact, the cross-examination portions of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses do not have any relevant facts for an elaborate discussion. 15. Similarly, the crossexamination portion of evidence of the Investigating Officer also does not have any material for an elaborate discussion. In fact, the cross-examination portions of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses do not have any relevant facts for an elaborate discussion. 15. The defence witness Yami Nidak has stated in her cross-examination that one morning she had seen the prosecutrix and the wife of the appellant in the midst of a quarrel with each other. The witness further stated in her cross-examination that the wife of the appellant suspected that her husband was having an illicit affair with the prosecutrix. The 2nd defence witness Tayu Natam, has stated in his cross-examination that the appellant is his brother-in-law. 16. I have carefully gone through the prosecution evidences as well as the defence evidence. It is apparent on the face of the record that the prosecutrix is the only eye witness to the occurrence. She has claimed that DinkioJitu was with her just prior to the occurrence and on seeing the appellant approaching; he had left the place leaving her alone. The witness Dinkio Jitu, failed to support that fact in his evidence. He had resiled from his earlier statement made before Police. Therefore, he was declared hostile. He stated in his cross-examination that when he and the appellant were returning home from their orange orchard, they met the prosecutrix on the road. The defence witness Yami Nidak has stated in her evidence that one morning she had seen the wife of the appellant quarrelling with the prosecutrix on the ground that the prosecutrix was alleged to be involved in an extra-marital affair with the appellant. This piece of evidence has not been assailed. 17. In the case in hand, there is no doubt that the fact of rape has not been medically proved i.e. there is no medical evidence to support that the victim was raped on the day of occurrence. Thus the case is based on the oral testimony of the victim. 18. In her evidence, the victim stated that when the appellant forcibly kissed her, she bit his lips and he sustained a bleeding wound. In this case there is no evidence to prove that fact. 19. So far as the veracity of the oral evidence of the prosecutrix is concerned, I have before me, the evidence of defence witness, Smt. Yami Nidak. In this case there is no evidence to prove that fact. 19. So far as the veracity of the oral evidence of the prosecutrix is concerned, I have before me, the evidence of defence witness, Smt. Yami Nidak. She has claimed that the wife of the appellant was fighting with prosecutrix on the ground that she has suspected the prosecutrix of having an illicit affair with her husband. This piece of evidence still stands tall in this case. 20. Now this Court is of the opinion that the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix failed to inspire confidence. The occurrence took place at about 4.30 pm and that too near a public road. 21. It is settled position of law that ordinarily the evidence of a victim of sexual attack deserves to be considered sacrosanct. Once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, conviction can be based only on solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and corroboration could be required unless there are appropriate reasons which necessitate the Court to seek corroboration and the statement of the victim lady has to be proved on the principle of probability just as the testimony of any other witness. 22. While considering the trial of rape cases, the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy, (1997) AIR SC 1588 held that the Courts are expected to show great responsibility. It was held thus: "27. Before parting with the case we would like to point out that the Courts are expected to show great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. 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 witnesses, which are not of a fatal nature to throw out allegations of rape. This is all the more important because ,of late crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating woman's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasise that the Courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in the totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation." 23. In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. It is a sad reflection and we must emphasise that the Courts must deal with rape cases in particular with utmost sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in the totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolation." 23. In Jai Krishna Mandal & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 14 SCC 534 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue, has held: "The only evidence of rape was the statement of the prosecutrix herself and when this evidence was read in its totality, the story projected by the prosecutrix was so improbable that it could not be believed." 24. In Rajoo & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) AIR SC 858, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. The court however, further observed: " It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. There is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration." 25. In Tameez uddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court held has under: "It is true that 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 a criminal matter." 26. In Narender Kumar Versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court, has observed as under: " In a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. In Narender Kumar Versus State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 171 , the Hon,ble Supreme Court, has observed as under: " In a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused." 27. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Pertin, the learned Sr. counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in the case of SujitBiswas v State of Assam, reported in 2013 12 SCC 406 . Paragraph-13 of the said judgment is quoted, herein below: "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between 'may be' true and 'must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense." 28. Mr. Tado, the learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in in the Case of Aman Kumar and Anr. v State of Haryana, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 379 . Paragraph-5 of the said judgment is quoted as under: "5.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 suffice." 29. In the case in hand, I find it is difficult to accept the evidence of the prosecutrix on its face value and without any corroboration. I am of the considered opinion that her evidence cannot be straightway accepted. There is unassailed evidence in this case to suggest that the prosecutrix was alleged to have been maintaining illicit relationship with the appellant. Her claim, that she had bit the lips of the appellant and he sustained bleeding wound, remained not proved. 30. Under the aforesaid premised reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecutrix failed to inspire confidence. She is not a reliable witness. Therefore this court has reasons to hold that the prosecution evidence failed to prove the offence against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court also has reasons to hold that the Trial Court erroneously appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at a wrong finding. The impugned judgment is not at all sustainable. She is not a reliable witness. Therefore this court has reasons to hold that the prosecution evidence failed to prove the offence against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court also has reasons to hold that the Trial Court erroneously appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at a wrong finding. The impugned judgment is not at all sustainable. The appeal is allowed. 31. The impugned judgment and order dated 08.10.2018/11.10.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh, in Basar Sessions Case No. 783/2012, convicting the appellant under Section 376(1) of the IPC stands set aside and quashed. The appellant Shri Tamik @ Giomuk Bami is acquitted from this case. 32. The Criminal Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.