In rape cases, conviction cannot solely rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, especially when significant discrepancies and absence of physical evidence exist to support the claims.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is daughter of P.Ws.2 and 3 and this appellant is known to family of the victim and residing in nearby locality. The victim was studying in 9^th standard and is a minor. On 09.07.2011 at 1.30 p.m., victim returned to her house after the school and her parents and brothers were not in the house and she was alone. At about 1.45 p.m., the appellant came to her house and knocked the door and when she opened the door, accused returned the machete which he had taken from her father and came inside the house and embraced and kissed her and then he caught hold her hand and took her to bed room and gagged her mouth by putting cloth and made her to lie on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent. On 21.07.2011 night, victim was weeping and later, the parents of the victim came to know about the incident and on the next day, they lodged the complaint. The police registered the case in Crime No.155/2011, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.

3. The accused was arrested and he was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, he was released on bail. The accused did not plead guilty. Hence, the prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 to 6. On behalf of the defence also, four witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D7.

4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, convicted the accused and sentenced the accused for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 506 IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present criminal appeal is filed before this Court.

5. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that Trial Court failed to consider the material on record and there are serious material irregularities and illegalities in appreciating the material evidence available on record. It is contended that evidence placed on record by the prosecution suffers from contradictions, improvements and omissions and the Trial Court ought to have given benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. It is also contended that the Trial Court has failed to consider that there was ill-will between the parties of the victim and some of the muslim people with regard to the place where the victim and her parents were residing. It is contended that it is a sexual act, but no injuries was caused to her and no injuries on the accused and medical evidence is also very clear that no sign of subjecting her for sexual act and inspite of it, the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused. It is also contended that on the date of the alleged incident, he was attending the work and also produced Ex.D6-certificate issued by Offshore Infrastructure, wherein the appellant was working and plea of alibi was taken and examined the witness and the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused solely on the evidence of prosecutrix, her mother and brother, when other material on record clearly shows that appellant is an innocent. It is further contended that prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim, though examined the Head Mistress and the same has not be