The reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and the need for corroboration from medical evidence and witness statements are crucial in cases of rape allegations.

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19-10-2001 delivered by Shri T. R. Burman, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja in Sessions Case No. 189/2001 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months each.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 16-5-2000 at about 10.00 p.m. the prosecutrix aged about 17 years, was returning from village Aara to her home in Hardijhiria. She was accompanied by Manju and Lalsai. On way near Ginamoda the appellants started teasing her. The appellant-Dharam Sai pulled the hand of the prosecutrix. When Manju and Lalsai intervened they were threatened by the appellants. Both Manju and Lalsai went away. The appellants dragged the prosecutrix to a nearby field situated at a distance of about 50 meters. Dharam Sai felled the prosecutrix on the ground and after undressing mounted on the prosecutrix and committed rape on her while the appellant Alamsai stood nearby. When Alamsal was about to commit rape on the prosecutrix she said that she was feeling thirsty, and therefore, she should first be given some water. Both the appellants took the prosecutrix to the house of Simon Uraon situated at a distance of one and half kilometers from the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix entered the house of SimonUraon and did not come out. The appellants entered the house of Simon Uraon and attempted to drag the prosecutrix out. However, Simon Uraon and his wife Bodidevi prevented the appellants from doing so. Thereafter, the appellants went away. The prosecutrix remained in the house of Simon Uraon. At 3.00 a.m. her father Rijhanram P.W. 1 while returning from village Aara saw the prosecutrix in the house of Simon Uraon. The prosecutrix did not narrate the incident to Rijhanram or to her mother on returning home- On the next date when Manju informed Rijhanram about the incident, he asked the prosecutrix whereupon the narrated the incident to Rijhanram and mother Gulabari P.W. 2.

3. FIR was lodged on the next date i.e. 17-5-2000 at 6.00 p.m. in Police Station Sitapur by the prosecutrix. She was sent for medical examination. Dr. Pratibha Jain P.W. 4 who examined the prosecutrix did not find any mark of violence on her body. No internal injury was found. There was an old vaginal tear present. There was no tenderness in the private parts. Vaginal slides were prepared and handed over to the police. The policy also seized the petticoat of the prosecutrix on 18-5-2000. On being sent for medical examination, the FSL vide report Ex. If. 14 did not find any semen or human spermatozoa on the vaginal slides and the petticoat of the prosecutrix. The appellants were examined by Dr. K. K. Dutta P.W. 5 who found them capable of performing sexual intercourse. After completion of investigation. the appellants were prosecuted for offence under Section 376(2)(g).

4. The appellants abjured the guilt, pleaded false implication and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid in paragraph 1.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has read the testimony of the prosecutrix in ex-tenso and argued that it fails to inspire confidence and is not worth placing credence. It was also contended that neither the medical evidence of Dr. Pratibha Jain P.W. 4 nor the report of F.S.L. Ex. P14 supported the prosecution story. It was also argued that the prosecutrix had specifically testified the date of occurrence to be 15-5-2000 and the date of lodging the report to be 17-5-2000 in paragraph 11 of her testimony whereas the FIR Ex. P1 showed that the incident was reported to have occurred on 16-5-2000. It was also contended that the prosecutrix had admitted in paragraph 15