JUDGMENT

D.M. Patnaik, J. - In the above two appeals, appellants Balaram and his son Bhagirath assail their conviction under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and ten years respectively.

2. Prosecution case is, on 17.11.1989 about 5 p.m. the prosecutrix (P.W. 1) an unmarried girl aged 22 years reached the village of appellants and demanded Rs. 600 from appellant Balaram which the latter was obliged to repay. Since he did not pay the amount, there was altercation between the two. When night fell appellant Balaram asked her to stay in his house and take money in the morning. The prosecutrix slept on a cot in the passage room of the appellants. In the night about 10 p.m. it was alleged that she was raped by the appellants and three other unknown persons of that village in succession. She sustained injuries on her neck chest and breast. She could not report the matter during the night hours, but in the next morning about 9 a.m. on 18.11.1989 she reported the matter at Nimpara Police Station. She was sent to Puri for medical examination at 4 p.m. At Puri she could not be medically examined on that day but on the next day at 10 a.m. she was medically examined. The doctor with reference to the injuries on her person opined that rape could not have been ruled out.

3. The appellant in their defence denied the prosecution allegation but stated that on 18.11.1989 in the morning P.W. 1 came to their house and complained before appellant Balaram that during the preceding night she was raped by some one and sought for his help. Since appellant Balaram expressed his inability to do anything in the matter, it was alleged that, this false case was lodged against them.

4. Mr. P.K. Dhal, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the highly, improbable nature of evidence of P.W. 1 and the inherent defect in the prosecution case, the conviction and sentence are not sustainable. Mr. Dhal argued on various points which will be discussed at the appropriate stage.

Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction.

5. Except the self-breath of the prosecutrix, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The trial court has believed the evidence of P.W. 1 as true. It also found her evidence duly corroborated by medical evidence, the doctor (P.W. 4). The point, is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature and extent of corroboration sought by the trial coon is sufficient to prove' the case against the appellants. I may state the law as on the point :-

"It is well settled that the conviction can be maintained even on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if believed to be true being wholly reliable and in such a case corroboration is not sought for. Corroboration becomes necessary when such evidence is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. It is in such case, "the court has to circumspect and (sic) look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial" (refer decision Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras1).

So far as the victim in the rape case is concerned, generally speaking she is' not an accomplice. She is the victim of the rape. In such cases corroboration is not essential if her testimony is believed for securing a conviction. But the court normally looks for corroboration of her testimony to satisfy its conscience that she is telling the truth (vide decision reported in Gurucharan Singh v. State of Haryana2, following the decision in A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 543; but the nature of corroboration should be such so that it lends assurance that the evidence of the prosecutrix can be safely acted upon (vide decision A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 1434), and this is not with regard to the act of rape alone but such testimony should be corroborated in some matter to connect the appellants (vide decision 1971 (3) S.C.C. 927)5. Further corroboration as a