JUDGMENT

(Smt.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in Sessions Case No.RBT-8 of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC. By judgment and order dated 3/8/2001, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 450 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant filed criminal appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this appeal, by special leave.

3. According to the prosecution on 12/3/1999, the prosecutrix who was examined as PW-5 was watching a film on television along with her younger brothers till 12.30 in the night. Both her brothers went to sleep. She went outside the veranda to relieve herself. The appellant, who is her neighbour, was standing on the wall of his house. He jumped from the wall, came to her house and raped her. When the prosecutrix raised alarm, her elder brother PW-1 Fateh Ram came there whereupon the appellant ran away. The prosecutrix lodged her complaint on 14/3/1999 on the basis of which investigation was set into motion. After completion of investigation, the appellant came to be charged as aforesaid.

4. The prosecution case is sought to be established through the evidence of the prosecutrix and her brother PW-1 Fateh Ram. The appellant denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. Having gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

5. Mr. D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously urged that the evidence of the prosecutrix is totally unreliable and deserves to be discarded. She has not supported the prosecution. Evidence of her brother also does not substantiate the prosecution case. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix has not been examined by the prosecution. Counsel submitted that conviction of the appellant must, therefore, be set side. Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, learned AAG for the State, however, submitted that the prosecution case can be sustained on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix. The Medico Legal Report (MLR) establishes the case of rape. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

6. In a case involving charge of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix is most vital. If it is found credible; if it inspires total confidence, it can be relied upon even sans corroboration. The court may, however, if it is hesitant to place implicit reliance on it, look into other evidence to lend assurance to it short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. [See: State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [JT 1990 (1) SC 61 : 1990 (1) SCC 550]]. Such weight is given to the prosecutrix's evidence because her evidence is on par with the evidence of an injured witness which seldom fails to inspire confidence. Having placed the prosecutrix's evidence on such a high pedestal, it is the duty of the court to scrutinize it carefully, because in a given case on that lone evidence a man can be sentenced to life imprisonment. The court must, therefore, with its rich experience evaluate such evidence with care and circumspection and only after its conscience is satisfied about its creditworthiness rely upon it.

7. W