JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Manoj Munda @ Parob has been convicted and sentenced to RI for ten years and a fine of Rs.5000/-under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo further RI for two months. 2. Mr. K.K. Ojha, the Amicus and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, the learned Spl.P.P. would draw our attention to the letter dated 20th February 2023 from the Jail Superintendent, Ghagidih, Jamshedpur to indicate that on completing ten years of custody, the appellant was released on 23rd November 2019 after he paid the fine amount. 3. Notwithstanding that, we have examined the materials on record and gone through the judgment passed in ST No.135 of 2012 against the appellant. 4. We find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has conducted and dealt with sessions trial in a most casual manner and recorded the finding of guilt against the appellant. 5. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution and there was no FSL report before the learned trial Judge who after referring to “Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (21st Edition)” has formed an opinion that the appellant has committed the offence under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, even though there was no bodily injury caused to the prosecutrix or any semen stain found on her clothes. 6. Dr. Rashmi Verma PW5 has examined the prosecutrix on 3rd October 2011. She has not found any mark of assault on the body of the prosecutrix. 7. The prosecutrix who was examined as PW1 has deposed in the Court that she was bleeding and there were stains of semen on her clothes. However, her clothes were not seized by the Investigating Officer. 8. Notwithstanding that, the learned trial Judge has referred to the judgment in “Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey” (1992) 3 SCC 204 and “Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (21st Edition)” to hold the appellant guilty. 9. No doubt the conviction of an accused can be recorded on the basis of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness. However, before the Court decides to convict the accused it must satisfy itself that the testimony of the sole witness is not motivated and tampered with falsehood. 9. No doubt the conviction of an accused can be recorded on the basis of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness. However, before the Court decides to convict the accused it must satisfy itself that the testimony of the sole witness is not motivated and tampered with falsehood. The kind of evidence which PW1 has tendered in the Court definitely is not of sterling quality on the basis of which conviction of the appellant could have been recorded. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and, as noticed above, the medical evidence did not support her story. 10. The trial Judge has held as under: “18. Upon meticulously scanning the evidence of the witnesses, documents proved on behalf of the prosecution and hearing the Id. counsels for the rival sides, I find that the prosecutrix/victim has been examined as P.W.1. She has categorically supported the prosecution case that, the accused herein, along-with his brother-in-law Faru Ajay, had committed rape upon her after dragging her to the house of the accused herein, when she had gone for toilet, in bushes near her house. P.W. 5 is the doctor. She has found the hymen of the victim to be torn and opined that the estimated age of the victim was between 15 to 17 years. Despite opportunity given to the defence, neither the doctor (P.W.5), nor the I.O.(P.W.6) were cross-examined. 19. It is settled law that minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses would not throw away the prosecution case and conviction can result on the basis of even solitary witness, if credible. It has been held in judgment reported in 2012 (3) JLJR (SC) 129 Narendra Kumar versus State (NCT of Delhi) that: “it is settled legal proposition that once the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitates the court for the corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence under the given facts and circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. In the instant case, the prosecutrix/victim (P.W.1) has categorically supported the prosecution case and her evidence inspires confidence. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Gopal Kakkad versus Naval Dubey reported in (1992) 3 SCC 204 has referred to Modi in Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (21st edition) at page 369, which reads as follows: 'It is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains'. 21. In the light of above discussion, I conclude that the prosecution has succeeded in proving charge U/s 376(2)(g) of the IPC, beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts against the accused herein, Manoj Munda @ Parob. 22. In such fact and circumstances, I find and hold that the accused herein, Manoj Munda @ Parob, is found guilty of the charge U/s 376(2)(g) of the IPC and as such he is convicted of the said charge. The accused Manoj Munda @ Parob, is in custody in connection with this case and as such, in the light of his conviction, he is directed to be produced on 16.04.2014 for hearing on the point of sentence..” 11. Having examined the materials on record, we find serious infirmity in the judgment of conviction dated 11th April 2014 and, accordingly, it is set-aside. 12. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 575 of 2014 is allowed. 13. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. 14. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'.