The central legal point established in the judgment is that the conviction for the offence of rape can be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, but the evidence presented must support the conviction.

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 6/8/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No.2 of 2014. The appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:- PW 4 - S (victim) was resident of village Sawali, Tq. Biloli. The appellant was also resident of the very village. It so happened that the victim had been to Laxmi Gudi temple to bring firewood. It was 4.00 p.m. of 19/3/2019. When she was collecting firewood, the appellant came from behind and pressed her mouth. He lifted her and took in a nearby cotton field of one Abarao Sangnod. He made her lie on the ground and removed her saree. He then had sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will. He then ran away. The victim came home. She related the incident to her mother-in-law and the husband as well. She, thereafter, lodged FIR (Exh.40.) at Biloli Police Station.

3. Based on the FIR, crime vide C.R. No.23 of 2013 came to be registered. The victim was medically screened. The appellant was arrested. The scene of offence panchnama was drawn. The clothes on the person of both appellant and victim at the relevant time, were taken charge of under panchnama. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The C.A. reports were received. The statements of the persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded. The appellant was proceeded against by filing the charge sheet.

4. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge. The appellant pleaded not guilty. His evidence is of false implication.

5. Eight witnesses were examined and certain documents were produced in evidence to bring home the charge. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the victim was little over 35 years of age at the relevant time. The appellant was 23 years of age. The medical examination report does not support the prosecution. The sole testimony of the victim was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. He, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal.

7. Learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that the conviction for the offence of rape can be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim. Here, the medical evidence reinforces evidence of the victim. According to learned APP, no Indian woman would file a false complaint of offence of rape at the cost of her chastity. In support of his contentions, learned APP relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pappu @ Yunus and anr., AIR 2005 SC 1248 and (ii) Phool Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2022 SC 222, to ultimately urge for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence relied on. Gone through the authorities pressed into service. Although the prosecution examined eight witnesses, the evidence relevant for deciding the appeal would be that of the victim, her husband and the Doctor, who had medically examined her.

9. Let us appreciate the evidence of the prosecution. PW 4 - S (Victim) testified that on the given day, she had been to Laxmi Gudi temple to fetch firewood. When she was engaged in collecting firewood, the appellant came from behind. He made her lie on the ground and removed her saree. He had then sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. It is further in her evidence that the appellant, thereafter, ran away. One Gani came. He helped her lift the firewood bundle. She, however, did not relate him the inci