ORDER

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad. The appellant is a medical practitioner and he was charged by the prosecution alleging that he raped a patient who had visited his clinic for treatment. The appellant was found guilty by the Additional Sessions Court, Ambajogai, and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and a fine of rupees five thousand and a sentence of six months' imprisonment for non-payment of fine. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. '

2. The facts in short are as follows:

The appellant is running a clinic at Parali. On 17-12-1990, the prosecutrix, along with her husband and their small child, came to the clinic at about 9 a.m. Several patients were waiting for consultation with the appellant doctor. The prosecutrix and her husband waited there and at first the prosecutrix took her child to the appellant doctor and the appellant examined the child and prescribed some medicines. Thereafter the prosecutrix herself wanted to consult the doctor as she had some ailments. She entered the room of the appellant, then a boy (attendant) directed the prosecutrix to go to another room for being examined by the doctor. According to the prosecutrix she entered the room and the appellant bolted the door of the room from inside and asked the prosecutrix to lie on a table and it is alleged that the appellant meddled with the private parts of the prosecutrix and then she felt that the appellant was making attempts to sexually assault her and it is alleged that before she could raise any alarm the appellant pressed her mouth and had sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix came out of the room weeping and told the entire incident to her husband, who was waiting outside. The husband of the prosecutrix thereafter went to PW 7, Prakash Kadam, who was working as a compounder in another hospital run by one Dr. Wangikar. The prosecutrix herself went to Parali Police Station and gave an FI statement and a case was registered against the appellant.

3. PW 11 took over the investigation; he recorded further statement of the complainant. The prosecutrix then was taken to the clinic of the appellant and there he prepared the spot panchnama. He seized the petticoat and the sari worn by the prosecutrix at the time of the incident. The complainant was sent to Ambajogai Hospital for medical examination. The appellant was arrested on the same day and he was also taken for medical examination. During the course of investigation PW 11 had also collected the samples of semen and blood of the appellant. The blood sample was sent to Hyderabad Laboratory for examination. PW 11 recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter filed the final report.

4. PW 1 to PW 13 were examined on the side of the prosecution. The Sessions Court as well as the High Court mainly relied on the oral evidence given by the complainant and it was held that the evidence of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient to convict the appellant as it had a ring of truth. This finding was upheld by the High Court.

5. The finding of the Sessions Court as well as the High Court is seriously challenged before us. Mr Shanti Shushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the High' Court had erred. in considering the overall circumstances of the case and the improbable versions given by the prosecutrix. It is also contended before us that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not supported by the medical evidence or scientific evidence produced in this case. The counsel contended that the entire incident could not have happened in the clinic as alleged by the prosecution. On the other hand, the counsel for the State supported the judgment and contended that the prosecutrix had no grudge against the appellant and she had given a truthful version an