JUDGMENT : A.Y. Kogje, J. 1. Present Appeal is preferred under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant-convict against the conviction recorded by the judgment and order dated 28-09-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.22 of 2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section-376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-. He has also been convicted for offence under Section-506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The prosecution was lodged on the basis of FIR being C.R. No.I-126 of 2006 registered on 26-12-2006 by the informant-victim alleging that five days prior thereto in the midnight, accused-appellant had entered into the house of the informant in absence of her husband and while, her children were sleeping and forcibly committed rape on her. 3. Upon conclusion of the investigation on 19-02-2007, the charge-sheet came to be filed for offence under Section-376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and the Sessions came to be committed after due compliance with requirement of Section-209 by the Court of Magistrate vide its order dated 16-03-2007 (Exh-8). 4. By the impugned order, the trial culminated into conviction against which, present Appeal is preferred, which came to be admitted under order dated 18-10-2007 by this Court. This Court by order dated 04-12-2007 had dismissed application for permanent bail. Thereafter, the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1756 of 2008 has ordered release of the appellant on bail vide order dated 07-11-2008. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the case of the prosecution is hardly believable and there is no charge against the appellant for offence under Section-448 of IPC and therefore, entire case of forcible entry into the residence of the victim is ruled out. Learned Advocate has submitted that 10 witnesses have bee examined by the prosecution, who were around the scene of offence, but from their deposition, no support is received by the prosecution theory, as none of the witnesses, though in close proximity got any sign of forcible entry or any alarm that may have been raised by the victim. Learned Advocate has submitted that 10 witnesses have bee examined by the prosecution, who were around the scene of offence, but from their deposition, no support is received by the prosecution theory, as none of the witnesses, though in close proximity got any sign of forcible entry or any alarm that may have been raised by the victim. 5.1 It is submitted that only two witnesses, who are in support of the prosecution are the victim and her husband and they are vitally interested. Therefore, it is submitted that though the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses, these witnesses are not supporting theory of rape. 5.2 Learned Advocate for the appellant on the basis of evidence of the witnesses residing in nearby place and also panchnama of scene of offence has submitted that incident as is described by the victim is virtually impossible, as the other witnesses were in the vicinity and would have easily come to know about any forcible entry into the residence of the victim or would have been alerted by any alarm that may have been raised. 5.3 On the basis of scene of offence, it is submitted that In-laws of the victim were residing in the ground-floor and the location of the staircase is such, that if anybody climbs up into the residence of the victim, In-laws would have been alerted. This witnesses in their deposition have not indicated of any alarm being raised. 5.4 Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that evidence of the victim is not reliable as manner in which the incident is described, is not probable particularly, it is her case that her minor children were sleeping in the ‘Varanda’ (Osri), which is adjacent to the main door and any opposition by the victim to forcible entry would have awaken the children, but the prosecution has not examined two children. 5.5 Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the FIR is registered belatedly, as alleged incident took place on 21-12-2006, whereas FIR is registered on 24-12-2006, despite the fact that even if the husband of the victim was not in town yet all the family members, In-laws were very much available to support her, if she decided to file the FIR. 5.6 Explanation offered by the victim for the delay is eye-wash and afterthought. 5.6 Explanation offered by the victim for the delay is eye-wash and afterthought. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the procedure adopted by the prosecution in so far as medical examination of the victim is also doubtful, as even when the incident was reported on 26-12-2006, medical examination was conducted after almost between 24 to 48 hours after the FIR. 5.7 Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that there is also inter-se contradiction in the deposition of the victim and her husband with regard to the occupation of the husband and manner in which the husband and the appellant came to know each other. 5.8 Learned Advocate for the appellant has lastly submitted that overall reading of the evidence of the victim herself and the attending circumstance indicated consensual relation and thereafter, the victim has turned around to attribute the offence to the appellant more out of fear of her In-laws and society. 5.9 Learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mohd. Ali Alias Gudu v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 7 SCC 272 to support his argument that the delay in lodging FIR would put the case of the prosecution in doubt and if such delay is not explained, as in the present case, benefit goes to the accused. On the basis of this decision, learned Advocate has also argued that when the conviction is to be based on the testimony of the victim, then such testimony needs to be of sterling quality and in the present case, as surrounding circumstance would not be sufficient to lend credence to the version of the victim, the prosecution ought to have been brought on record some corroborative piece of evidence and in failing to do so, the benefit is required to be given to the accused. 5.10 Learned Advocate for the appellant has then relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka v/s. Mapilla P.P. Soopi reported in 2003 (8) SCC 202 in support of his argument that the failure on the part of the victim to raise alarm alerting other witnesses and their being no bodily injuries, then offence of rape may not be believed. 5.11 Learned Advocate for the appellant has lastly referred to and relied upon unreported CAV Judgment dated 17-10-2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.561 of 2011 in case of Haresh Ghatorbhai Satwara v/s. State of Gujarat. According to the learned Advocate, the Court in the aforesaid case has held that in absence of any direct evidence and in absence of any corroborative evidence, the Sessions Court has committed error in appreciating evidence on record and had therefore, interfered with the conviction of the appellant therein and set aside the conviction. 6. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State has opposed the Appeal and submitted that the prosecution was able to establish the charge on the basis of the evidence of the victim herself and as the victim has deposed about entire incident and even in the cross examination, her version is not challenged, there are no other circumstances, which would put the deposition of the victim in doubt and therefore, the victim is witness, who is wholly reliable and on the basis of her uncorroborated testimony, the Sessions Court has rightly convicted the appellant. 6.1 Learned APP has further submitted that the delay, which is argued to be fatal by the appellant, cannot be treated as fatal, as in the deposition of the victim herself, she has indicated that offence took place, when her husband was not in town and immediately upon his returning to the town, she has mustered courage to file the FIR and in doing so, there is no delay. Aforesaid version is supported by the evidence of the husband as well. 6.2 Learned APP has further submitted that arguments of the appellant about the evidence of independent witnesses not supporting version of the victim, has submitted that in the offence like rape, there cannot be any eye-witnesses. Not only that, but the appellant was known to the family. He was God-man, who used to perform rituals and, in that capacity, he had gained entry into the residence and thereafter, committed rape. Admittedly, time of offence is of midnight and therefore, even if attempt for raising alarm would have been made, it could have failed. 6.3 None the less, the appellant being God-man wielded influence over the victim, because of which, the victim could not confront and immediately registered the FIR. Admittedly, time of offence is of midnight and therefore, even if attempt for raising alarm would have been made, it could have failed. 6.3 None the less, the appellant being God-man wielded influence over the victim, because of which, the victim could not confront and immediately registered the FIR. 6.4 Learned APP has lastly submitted that evidence in entirety of the prosecutrix does not indicate that there was no resistance and that relation was with her consent. It is submitted that line of cross examination also does not indicate that the prosecutrix was interested in framing the appellant by involving in the present offence. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the evidences on record, it appears that the manner in which the incident took place and registration of the FIR having been described in the preceding paras, the appellant came to be charged vide Exh-5 on 09-07-2007 for offences under Section-376, 506(2) of IPC for the incident, which took place on 21-12-2006 in the night around at 12 am. The appellant entered into the residential premise of the victim located behind Dhrangadhra S.T. Bus stand. Upon entering, he closed the door and against wishes of the victim committed rape on her and threatened her of killing her, in case, she informs anyone about the offence. 7.1 The victim was examined as PW-3 at Exh-20 and in her deposition, she has indicated about her residence and residing with her family, which consisted of two minor children and the fact that she was residing separately from her In-laws and her husband was engaged in masonry work and building temples out of marbles and other stones. About the incident, she has deposed that on 21-12-2006 at 12.00 am, when she was sleeping in her house along with her two children, the appellant had knocked on her door and when she opened the door, the appellant informed that he has arrived for performing some rituals, but when the victim informed the appellant that her husband is not at home and so, she does not want to perform any rituals. He all of sudden entered into the house and forcible entered into the house and closed the door and catching hold of the victim, covered her mouth and dragged her inside into the room. He all of sudden entered into the house and forcible entered into the house and closed the door and catching hold of the victim, covered her mouth and dragged her inside into the room. She has deposed that being completely overpowered, she was unable to raise alarm and thereafter, he committed rape and left the house and while going, threatened her, if she discloses the incident, he would commit the murder of entire family. The witness has indicated about the injuries sustained on her left leg on the thigh portion. 7.2 This witness has deposed that on 24-12-2006, when her husband returned home, she related ordeal to her husband, when he observed that the victim was behaving abnormally. She has also deposed that on account of threat issued, she had not disclosed this incident to her In-laws. She has deposed that immediately husband called the appellant on phone to reprimand him, but in turn, the appellant himself threatened husband and therefore, they immediately approached the Police Station to file the FIR. 7.3 In the cross examination, this witness was questioned about the location of their house, approached by staircase to their house and the fact that first ground floor of the premises was occupied by her In-laws. This witness was also questioned about that when the appellant arrived at her door, she was fast asleep and therefore, the appellant had to knock the door with great force and this would have alerted the In-laws or at-least the children. However, merely suggestion to the victim that because she was fast asleep, the door was knocked with great force cannot lead to the presumption that this act would have alerted other witnesses; namely In-laws. It is pertinent to mention that the victim was also questioned about the previous relation between husband and the appellant and the suggestion made that husband was required to travel frequently out of town, whereas the appellant was wealthier than her husband, but she has declined the suggestion that the husband and the appellant were good friends. 7.4 Learned Advocate for the appellant did indicate the contradiction in the version of the victim with regard to the chronology of information being disclosed to the extent that at one stage, she has disclosed that before registration of the FIR, the incident was not disclosed to any other family members except for her husband. 7.4 Learned Advocate for the appellant did indicate the contradiction in the version of the victim with regard to the chronology of information being disclosed to the extent that at one stage, she has disclosed that before registration of the FIR, the incident was not disclosed to any other family members except for her husband. However, in the cross examination, she has deposed that after filing of the FIR, incident was disclosed to her In-laws, whereas in the same sentence, she has disclosed that before going to register the FIR, she herself has disclosed the incident to her In-laws. 7.5 In the opinion of the Court, disclosure of the incident before relatives will not cause doubt on the happening of the incident itself and therefore, submission of learned Advocate for the appellant about this contradiction has to be treated as minor contradiction, which does not affect the version of the victim in so far as the incident is concerned. 7.6 This witness was also questioned on the possibility of framing the appellant and question was put to her that as her husband was desirous to go to Dubai, he had received loan of Rs.15,000/- from the appellant, because of which, the FIR has been filed. This suggestion was completely negated by the victim and thereafter, there is nothing on record to support the appellant- defense that allegations were made for framing the appellant. 7.7 Overall appreciation of the evidence of the victim, in the opinion of the Court, the victim comes out as truthful and reliable witness, though the case of the defense was of attempt to frame the appellant. The same is not coming out through the deposition of this victim. The victim knew the appellant from prior to the incident and he is known to her as God-man, who would perform rituals for the purpose of betterment of the family and therefore, she has truthfully deposed that when the appellant came at odd hours of night, he had informed the victim that he had arrived for the purpose of performing some rituals. This version of the victim is consistent and the Court also does not find that in any manner, her version would fail test of reliability. This version of the victim is consistent and the Court also does not find that in any manner, her version would fail test of reliability. 7.8 Attempt on the part of the appellant-defense to doubt the credibility on the ground of delay, the Court finds that even testimony of the victim itself indicates that they were residing separately from her In-laws, though in the same premises, she was threatened by the appellant of dire consequences and it was only upon the arrival of the husband on 24-12-2006, she mustered courage to relate the incident to him and that to when husband himself observed abnormal behavior of his wife and questioned her about it. After arrival of the husband, there is no delay in registration of the FIR. According to the Court, the prosecution has assigned sufficient reasons for the delay through this witness and therefore, according to the Court, the delay is not to be treated as fatal to the prosecution. 7.9 In case of Mohd. Ali Alias Gudu (supra), the Apex Court in Para-27 does refer to the delay in lodging the FIR in cases under Section-376 of IPC would be relevant factor, but at the same time, the Apex Court has also observed that trauma suffered by the victim and various other factors are also required to be appreciated. 7.10 Reliance placed on the aforesaid decision was to support the case of the appellant- defense that sole testimony of the witness in the facts of the present case, may not be sufficient to convict. However, facts of the case before the Apex Court, the Apex Court observed the deposition of the prosecutrix, where she has deposed that she was taken from one place to another and had remained at various houses for almost two months and during this period, while traveling from one place to another, she was ravished number of times and that only reason, why she did not disclose offence, was that she was threatened by the accused person. This fact the Apex Court had viewed with other circumstances like medical examination indicating no injuries, delay in registration of the FIR, which cast doubt on the testimony of the prosecutrix and therefore, had allowed the Appeal. In the facts of the present case, as observed in the preceding paras, this Court does not find anything to doubt the version of the victim. In the facts of the present case, as observed in the preceding paras, this Court does not find anything to doubt the version of the victim. 7.11 Other witness examined is the husband; PW-8 at Exh-28. In the evidence in chief, he has deposed about his occupation and with regard to relation with the appellant. He has deposed that approximately six months prior to the incident, he had done some masonry work of toilets for the appellant. He has deposed that he was in Surat on the date and time of incident i.e. on 21-12-2006 and when he returned on 24-12-2006, having found his wife in depressed mood. He inquired about her well being and her health and immediately, his wife started crying and related incident, which took place on 21-12-2006. This witness also indicated that accused was sort of Godman and was popularly known in the town as ‘Worlivala’. He has also deposed that when he came to know about ordeal, he immediately confronted the appellant and told him that though you are Godman ‘Mataji no Bhuvo’, he ought not to have behaved with his wife like this, to which the appellant issued threats to the extent that before 10’O clock in the night, he would kill him and his wife. It is thereafter, this witness along with his wife proceeded to Police Station to register the FIR. 7.12 In the cross examination, this witness was questioned about genuineness of his deposition about being out of town for some work at Surat by asking him to produce any ticket of mode of transportation, to which this witness has indicated that he has not given any evidence about his travel to Surat. 7.13 In the opinion of the Court, merely inability to produce any ticket of public transport, cannot cast any doubt on the version of the witness of not being in town, when the incident took place. 7.14 It is in due course of his work of as a mason, he is required to travel out of town and has to continue to stay there till the work is completed. 7.14 It is in due course of his work of as a mason, he is required to travel out of town and has to continue to stay there till the work is completed. Therefore, attempt on the part of the appellant-defense that the witness was not out of town, when the incident was took place and therefore, the delay of 4 days is not explained, cannot be accepted, particularly, when both the victim and this witness are consistent in their version about whereabouts of this witness at the time of the incident. 7.15 This witness was also cross examined to establish that there were illicit relationship between the victim and the appellant, which this witness wanted to end and therefore, if such relations were not ended, this witness had threatened to get false FIR registered. This suggestion was immediately denied by this witness and therefore, stand of the appellant-defense of illicit consensual relationship also cannot be accepted. Questions were also put with regard to the letters written by wife to the appellant, which were also denied by this witness. The Court also, does not find any such letters having come on record and exhibited as evidence and therefore, also case of the appellant-defense of illicit consensual relationship is not probablized. 7.16 The Court has thereafter taken in to consideration the evidence of the Medical Officer examined as PW-2 vide Exh-16. In his deposition, he has described 8 injuries, which are as under: “(1) There was abrasion on the middle part of her thigh of left leg. (2) There was burns mark on her thigh part of left leg. (3) She was complaining of pain in her left leg. (4) Her secondary sexual parts of the body were fully developed. (5) Her hymen was seen as broken previously. (6) She was complaining about pain on the back of her hymen and reddish inflammation was seen there. (7) One finger could be inserted in her uterus. (8) She was in her menstrual period.” 7.17 It would also be relevant to reproduce the deposition of this witness in Para-2 of his deposition, which would read as under: “[2] During medical examination, the marks which were seen during internal examination of her uterus were leading towards the fact that someone had inserted penis recently. (8) She was in her menstrual period.” 7.17 It would also be relevant to reproduce the deposition of this witness in Para-2 of his deposition, which would read as under: “[2] During medical examination, the marks which were seen during internal examination of her uterus were leading towards the fact that someone had inserted penis recently. Further, the marks of abrasion on the left leg of her body and pain, which was felt by her was leading towards the fact that someone had committed intercourse with her forcefully. Considering the marks, which were seen during the medical examination of the external and internal parts of the said woman, the possibility could not be denied that someone had committed forceful intercourse with her immediately before the medical examination. I had taken the specimen of pubic hair, sticky liquid, saliva and blood of that women and issued certificate of her medical examination, which is produced vide Mark 9/3 in this case and signature and writing therein are my own, which I produce vide Exhibit 19.” 7.18 This witness has therefore, deposed that from his examination, possibility of forcible sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Attempt on the part of the appellant- defense to explain the injuries sustained is to the extent that witness has deposed in cross examination that injuries observed by the witness were approximately between 24 to 48 hours before examination, whereas the case of the prosecution is that the incident had taken place almost 5 days before being examined. Nothing is coming on record that after the incident and before examination of the victim by this witness, there is any medical treatment received by the victim and therefore, merely when the Medical Officer has given assessment of the age of the injuries, same cannot be treated to be conclusive that the age of the injuries cannot be beyond period mentioned by the witness. 7.19 This evidence of the Medical Officer, if is viewed along with the evidence of the victim herself, then only indefeasible conclusion arrived at is injuries observed by the Medical Officer were sustained at the time, when the incident took place. Through this witness, the medical case papers of the victim were exhibited vide Exh-18 and Exh-19 and the history communicated also support the version of the victim about the incident. In the medical case papers, the appellant has been described as friend of the husband. Through this witness, the medical case papers of the victim were exhibited vide Exh-18 and Exh-19 and the history communicated also support the version of the victim about the incident. In the medical case papers, the appellant has been described as friend of the husband. 7.20 The Court has thereafter referred to Scientific evidence and the Report of the FSL on the Articles seized during the course of investigation and Article-H, which is vaginal swab of the victim. Presence of semen has been found. Exh-38; Final Analysis Report, does indicate the presence of blood mixed with semen on the vaginal swab. However, Group of the same has remained unascertained. 7.21 In the opinion of the Court, this evidence is sufficient to establish sexual intercourse with the victim and therefore, same corroborates version of the victim. It is trite that evidence of the victim if found to be truthful and the victim is wholly reliable as a witness, corroboration may not be required, but in the present case, presence of semen in the vaginal swab and there being nothing on record to indicate that after incident of rape, the victim was subjected to any sexual intercourse before being medically examined, the Court is of the view that both the medical evidence as well as Scientific evidence would corroborate the version of the victim and lend much more credibility to her version. 7.22 Reliance placed upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant on the decision of Mapilla P.P. Soopi (supra), the Apex Court has taken into consideration various other factors like absence of any sign of forcible sexual intercourse and the deposition of the victim therein that she did raise alarm to resist, but surrounding circumstances, which found the children and other adults near the house of the victim, not responding to such alarm, the Court did not find the victim to be reliable witness. Unlike in the present case, it has come on record that physical examination of the victim indicted sign of force, so was the opinion of the Medical Officer, thus examined fact that the appellant was known to the family and the fact that children were minor, who were in deep sleep, as the incident had taken place in the midnight. Unlike in the present case, it has come on record that physical examination of the victim indicted sign of force, so was the opinion of the Medical Officer, thus examined fact that the appellant was known to the family and the fact that children were minor, who were in deep sleep, as the incident had taken place in the midnight. 7.23 Reliance placed upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant on unreported CAV Judgment in case of Haresh Ghatorbhai Satwara (supra), it would be pertinent to refer to re-appreciation of the evidence by this Court, where on re-appreciation, the Court found the evidence on record "it clearly appears that the friend of the prosecutarix, PW-7, Poojaben Dansingbhai, examined (Exh.28) as well as the lady (Lilaben Bavalbhai), who has alleged to have seen the prosecutarix with the appellant in the house of Hitesh, who has examined PW-8 (Exh.29) has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the age of the prosecutarix is less than sixteen years, serological report (Exh.51) indicates that the mattress, which was examined as Specimen No.A does not have presence of semen. Similarly the nicker of the prosecutarix came to be examined as Specimen No.B1 also indicates that no presence of semen was there. Considering all other items which were sent for serological report indicate that presence of semen was not found. Similarly perusal of the deposition of the prosecutarix though the prosecutarix has stated in her deposition that the appellant committed rape upon her, at the same breadth she has also stated in her examination (Exh.23) she has also identified the mattress and is also stated in her deposition that nicker had presence of semen. In addition to these it is found that the prosecution case is based on the fact that the prosecutarix first went with her friend-Poojaben (PW-7) to the house of Jyotsnaben and it is also further deposed by the prosecutarix that when she went to the house of Jyotsnaben other women i.e. Vimuben, Sangitaben, Kailashben and Poojaben went present. Prosecution has not examined such independent witnesses and, Poojaben, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even on re-appreciation of evidence as a whole, PW-7, Poojaben, as well as PW-8, Lilaben, have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. Prosecution has not examined such independent witnesses and, Poojaben, who has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even on re-appreciation of evidence as a whole, PW-7, Poojaben, as well as PW-8, Lilaben, have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. As far as evidence of PW-7, father of the victim, and PW-9, uncle of the victim, is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that it was Lilaben (PW-8), who informed about the incident, however, said Lilaben has not supported the case of the prosecution at all, as aforesaid. As observed earlier, the medical evidence as well as serological report do not support the case of the before prosecution. The history given before the Medical Officers is also in variance. Thus, considering the evidence as a whole, the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt against the appellant. The sole testimony of the prosecutarix is not at all believable and the version of the prosecutarix does not collaborate with the medical as well as the serological reports." 7.24 As discussed in the preceding paras, the Court has found witness to be wholly reliable, not only that the medical evidence as well as FSL evidence also corroborate version of the victim. Hence, the decision of this Court in unreported CAV Judgment in case of Haresh Ghatorbhai Satwara (supra), being on the facts of the case, will be of no assistance to the appellant herein. 7.25 This Court has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ajitkumar Kumarsingh Bhagora v/s. State of Gujarat reported in 2020 (1) GLR 27 , wherein in Para-22, the Court has observed as under: “22. In the cases of rape, the law does not require corroboration and, therefore, if the evidence of the prosecutrix is believed, there is no bar to convict the accused on her testimony alone. To put it in other words, there is no such law which requires corroboration before the statement of the prosecutrix is acted upon. Indisputably, a prosecutrix is a competent witness (vide section 118 of the Evidence Act). She is not an accomplice within the domain of section 133 of the Evidence Act. To put it in other words, there is no such law which requires corroboration before the statement of the prosecutrix is acted upon. Indisputably, a prosecutrix is a competent witness (vide section 118 of the Evidence Act). She is not an accomplice within the domain of section 133 of the Evidence Act. Thus, her statement, as such, does not require a corroboration within the meaning of section 114-B (114-A) of the Evidence Act which provides that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless she is corroborated in material particulars. The prosecutrix is a victim like any other victim of any other offence. Hence, the same weight is to be attached to her statement which requires to be attached to the statement of an injured person. Therefore, if the statement of the prosecutrix is quite clear and unequivocal on the point as to who has ravished her, there is no reason, whatsoever, as to why the said statement, without any corroboration from any quarter, whatsoever, cannot form the basis of conviction. Thus, her statement is to be scrutinized like the statement of any other witness and if there is a ring of truth about it and if it inspires confidence, the Courts would be under an obligation to rely thereupon. However, the principal question we need to answer is to what extent we should accept the case of the prosecutrix having regard to the evidence on record. If the statement of the prosecutrix suffers from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and the overall case put up by the prosecution does not inspire any confidence, then it would be very hazardous to base the conviction solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix.” 7.26 PW-6 and PW-7 were examined vide Exh-25 and Exh-27 respectively are the witnesses of the panchama drawn of the arrest of the appellant and seizure of his cloths as Exh-26 and the Articles seized during the panchnama. These witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the panchnama document was exhibited for their signature. However, the panchnama has been exhibited by the Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW-10 vide Exh-32 and in his evidence in chief, he has narrated manner in which the panchnama was being executed. Therefore, through him, the panchnama was exhibited vide Exh-26. However, the panchnama has been exhibited by the Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW-10 vide Exh-32 and in his evidence in chief, he has narrated manner in which the panchnama was being executed. Therefore, through him, the panchnama was exhibited vide Exh-26. 7.27 PW-4 and PW-5 are panch-witnesses of the place of offence and seizure of Articles lying therein, who were examined as Exh-22 and Exh- 24. These witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution only to the extent of their signature on the panchnama, but were declared hostile. However, same have been exhibited through the Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW-10 vide Exh-32. 7.28 The Court has thereafter referred to the appellant-defense witnesses, who were examined vide Exh-44 and Exh-46, who are neighbors of the appellant and through their evidence, the appellant-defense has challenged the version of the husband about the fact deposed by the husband that the husband had carried out masonry work of toilet at the residence of the appellant. According to these witnesses, no such work of masonry work was done at the house of the appellant and if at all, the appellant is to undertake any such masonry work, then it is appellant- defense witness No.1 (Exh-45), then this appellant- defense witness would be asked to do such work. 7.29 In the opinion of the Court, examining of the appellant- defense witness, who was deposed with regard to relation between the appellant and the husband of the victim does not have any bearing on the actual incident and would therefore, not be of any assistance to the appellant-defense. 7.30 Another appellant-defense witness No.3 has been examined at Exh-48 claiming to be neighbor of the victim and he has deposed that he has not come across of any incident of rape in his neighborhood approximately around period when the FIR came to be registered. This evidence of the appellant- defense witness will also not create any doubt on the prosecution, as this witness has deposed that had any incident taken place, then he would have definitely known about such incident. 7.31 The Court has also perused the judgment and order of the Sessions Court and having perused the reasonings given, the Court finds that appropriate reasons are assigned and the issues raised by the appellant-defense have also been answered. 7.31 The Court has also perused the judgment and order of the Sessions Court and having perused the reasonings given, the Court finds that appropriate reasons are assigned and the issues raised by the appellant-defense have also been answered. 7.32 In view of the reasonings assigned by the Sessions Court, so also reasons assigned after appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, the Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and order. The Court therefore, confirms the impugned judgment and final order of punishment dated 28-09-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.22 of 2007. 8. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The impugned judgment and final order of punishment dated 28-09-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.22 of 2007 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith.” 9. At this stage, learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is on bail and hence, seeks time to surrender. Considering the fact that the appellant was on bail since November, 2008, period of ten weeks is granted to surrender.