The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony, medical evidence, and scientific evidence to prove the offence of rape, and the acceptance of the prosecutrix's testimony without seeking corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.94/2014 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, wherein, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 376 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 448 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Out of the fine amount, Rs.8,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim.

2. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

3. Before adverting to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned High Court Government Pleader, it is necessary to mention the brief facts of the prosecution case before the Trial Court as under:

PW.1/victim has filed a complaint or the first information to Belthangady Circle Police Station on 27.03.2014 as per Ex.P.1 alleging that she is residing in the house at Kakkarabettu, Ujire village along with her husband and two children. Her husband is a daily wage employee. He used to go out for work and she was rolling beedi in the house. That on the said date i.e. on 27.03.2014, at about 12.00 noon, when she was in the house, the accused came there and asked water to drink. When she gave water to drink, the accused immediately locked the door and had forcible intercourse with her and also threatened to do away with her life, if she reveals the same to any other person. He also tried to give her some money, but she refused. Thereafter, the accused went away and she went to the Police station and lodged a complaint. After receipt of the complaint, the Police registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.162/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 376, 506 of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. The accused was also arrested and sent to medical examination. After completion of the investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the accused. He has been arrested on 17.03.2014 and later, he was released on bail on 15.04.2016. Later, the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, the Trial Court, after securing the presence of the accused, framed charges for the alleged offences. He has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case, in all, examined 13 witnesses as per P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked 17 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.17 as also marked 28 material objects as per MOs.1 to 28. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not entered any defence. After hearing the arguments, learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that except the evidence of PW.1, no other eyewitness supported the case of the prosecution. Even in the evidence of PW.1, there are lot of contradictions. The evidence of PW.1 cannot be acceptable as she is a married lady having two children. There is no injury on her personal body. She could have agitated when the accused came and tried to commit rape on her. There was no resistance from her and not raised hue and cry by PW.1 which leads to suspicion that she might be the consenting party. It appears both were caught redhanded and due to the intervention of the third party, the case has been foisted against the accused, as the accused and victim belong to different religion. The prosecutrix stated that after coming of PW.10, the neighbour, the accused went away from the back door which goes to suggest that the acc