IMPORTANT POINT
If version of the prosecutrix is not trustworthy and is not corroborated by other evidence, appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1998 affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.18 of 1997.

2. The instant matter arises out of FIR No.93 of 1997 lodged on 31.07.1997 at about 6:10 a.m. by PW-2 victim to the effect that in the previous night the appellant herein had committed rape on her and following was her version. The victim, an adivasi woman, though married was staying with her parents at Devipada. On 30.07.1997 after having visited her brother at Khetalpur, she had returned by bus and alighted at Bajna bus stand at about 10:00 P.M. She was sitting near a Ghumti when the appellant approached her and suggested to her to spend the night at Dharamshala with his children. She then accompanied him to Dharamshala but since there were no children he took her to the house of another person. There a man suffering from fever was sleeping and on the appellant suggesting that the victim be allowed to sleep there, said man raised objection. Thereupon the appellant went to get the keys of his house, during which time she came back to Dharamshala situated at the bus stand. The appellant came back and finding the victim to have fallen asleep, woke her up and tried to take her to his house. The victim having refused to go, he caught her hand and forcibly took her to his house. In the house the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with her, after which he asked the victim to spend the night at his house. However she ran away and returned to Dharamshala and slept there. The appellant came back to Dharamshala and suggested that he could make arrangements for her in the bus at which time a policeman also came. At Dharamshala the victim told everything to one Riyaz who was like a brother to her.

3. Next day i.e., on 31.07.1997 she reached the police station and lodged FIR exhibit P-2 as stated above, on the basis of which the investigation was undertaken. The victim was sent for medical examination and was examined by Dr. Sarojini Ben Patel (PW-1) who found no injuries on the private or external parts of her body and the doctor could not give any opinion about rape. The appellant having been apprehended was also sent for medical examination and was found to be capable of having sexual intercourse. After due investigation, the appellant was charged for having committed offence under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3 (2) (5) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, 1989.

4. In the trial the victim was examined as PW-2 who reiterated her version as stated above. Riyaz who was examined as PW-3 however did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Going by the medical evidence the trial court found that no definite opinion could be given about commission of rape. However relying on the testimony of the victim it convicted the appellant under section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-in default whereof to suffer further imprisonment for two months. The Trial Court however acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 3 (2) (5) of the SC and ST Atrocities Act, 1989.

5. In the appeal preferred by the appellant the High Court relied on the testimony of the victim and confirming the order of conviction and sentence it dismissed the appeal. The present appeal arises at the instance of the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence. While granting special leave to appeal the appellant was directed to be released on bail vide order dated 09.09.2013. We have heard Mr. Ram Ekbal Roy, learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Ayesha Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the State.

6. Though as a matter of law the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can sufficiently be relied upon to bring home the case against the accused, in the instant case w