JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted for offence punishable u/S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was reducedly sentenced by the High Court to four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix.

2. The prosecutrix, P.W. 1, undeniably was of consenting age, she being sixteen or seventeen years on the date of the occurrence. The prosecutrix and the accused-appellant were neighbours and belonged to the same Harijan community. She was a constant visitor to the house of P.W. 5. On the day of the occurrence, P.W. 5 apparently, invited her to her house. At about 2 p.m. that day when she went to the house of P.W. 5, the latter was found present there. The appellant however suddenly came there, closed her mouth, took her inside, smothered kisses on her face, and then lay her on the ground and committed rape on her. The act did not leave any tell-tale circumstantial evidence from which inference of rape could be deduced inasmuch as her clothes were intact, her glass bangles were unbroken and no injury of any sort was found on her outward person. According to P.W. 8, a neighbour, he had seen the prosecutrix going to the house of P.W. 5 and the appellant thereafter to have entered that house. Likewise, after some time, he had seen first the appellant exit from that house and thereafter the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix kept her mouth shut for six days. Allegedly, for the reasons that she felt pain on her private parts for the first time, she informed her mother about the incident, who in turn, related it to her husband. It is thereafter that the matter was reported to the police. The necessary medical examination of the prosecution book place. The Doctor examining her found that no visible injuries were available on her person or on her private parts. Her hymen was found irregular and her vagina admitted two fingers. The Doctor preponderated that admission of two fingers in the vagina of the prosecutrix suggested that she could be used to sexual intercourse and that otherwise there were no visible signs of rape or marks of violence.

3. The star witness of the prosecution, of course, was the prosecutrix. Her word, if believed, would lead to conviction and if not, would lead to acquittal. That there is no corroboration to her word is beyond dispute. It has barely to be noticed that corroboration in such cases is not an absolute must, but at times Courts have sought corroboration as a prudent measure, in case doubt instills the judicial mind. Now, here three Courts below have accepted the version of the prosecutrix and have recorded and kept maintained the conviction. The trial Court in its judgment has observed that when the prosecutrix was being examined during trial, she was being observed by the Presiding Officer and according to him she appeared to be a truthful witness. With this observation in the way, would it be desirable to doubt the statement of the prosecutrix in this fourth round of litigation, is the question to be considered.

4. Each Court has elaborately discussed the evidence of the prosecutrix and highlighted the circumstances in which she was raped and the fear instilled in her mind for which reason she did not disclose the crime of rape to her parents. But, that, in our view, is not the end of the matter.

5. We may proceed with the assumption that the sexual act did take place in the way suggested by the prosecution and that the appellant was involved in it. But, was it a case of consent ? In order to determine that, we have to see the conduct of the prosecutrix. The pecularity in that regard which creates doubt is that the prosecutrix kept quiet for six days and did not whisper a word about it to anyone. Her getting pain in her private parts six days later is unbelievable when no tenderness was found by the Doctor and no complaint of pain was made to her. There is evidence on the record that the appellant had been employed in Dub