( 1 ) ON April 15, 1991 at about 9. 45 p. m. the Operation Theatre of the Guru Nanak Eye Centre was a mute witness to an unfortunate incident involving Kumari Kiran Sharma and the present appellant Jai Chand. They were no strangers to each other. Whereas Kumari Kiran Sharma was employed in the said Centre as a Staff Nurse, Jai Chand was working there as a Nursing Orderly. This is how the prosecution witnesses unfold the events.

( 2 ) KUMARI Kiran Sharma was on duty from 9 p. m. to 7. 30 a. m. in the Operation Theatre. Jai Chand too was on duty on that very day. His duty hours were from 8 p. m. to 7. 30 a. m. At about 9. 45 p. m. after Ms. Sharma had finished her routine work she came to the Post Operation room of the Theatre. Jai Chand also arrived there and after catching hold of her, forcibly laid her down on the bed, broke the string of her Pyjama, gave aooth bite on her left cheek and tomed her underwear. He even removed her sanitary pad. Ms. Sharma, however , did not give up. After giving him a push, she ran to the "reception" at the first floor of the building where she narrated the incident to Sister A. Mathew (Public Witness -2 ). Later Dr. A. K. Gupta, Head of the Department, (PW-3) also reached there who called the police leading to the recording of her statement, EX. PW 1/a and seizure of her clothes namely, Pyjama (Ex. P-1), underwear (Ex. P-2) besides the broken string (Ex. P-3 ).

( 3 ) ONE thing more before I bring this narrative to a close. Ms. Sharma was medically examined on April 16, 1991 bydr. Prem Kumar (Public Witness -9 ). Before him too she had narrated the entire incident but what is more relevant is that she had complained of pain on both her arms, upper lip and in the nape of neck and that the said Doctor on her physical examination had found bruises on middle of her left cheek besides one abrasion.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional District Judge convicted Jai Chand under section 376 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3-1/2 years.

( 5 ) HENCE this appeal.

( 6 ) AS already noticed the learned counsel for the appellant sought acquittal of the appellant on the ground that the statement of Ms. Sharma had not been corroborated. Besides that it was also his contention that the entire prosecution version was unnatural as Ms. Sharma was not expected to be in the Operation Theatre at about 9. 45 p. m. as in eye hospitals surgeries are done during day time. Lastly it was argued that from the material on the record it could not be said that the appellant had attempted to commit rape.

( 7 ) CORROBORATION is not a sine qua non for conviction in a case like the present one. Rather refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault on account of absence of corroboration as a rule would amount to adding insult to injury. Let us also remember that neither there is any allegation of animus on the part of Ms. Sharma against Jai Chand nor is there any element of artificiality or unnaturalness in her story. Why should she foist such a story unless a remarkable set of facts or clearest motives are made out? More so, when we know that feminine tendency is to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression. There is nothing on the record to show that at the Guru Nanak Eye Centre surgeries are done only during day time. There is no suggestion even in cross-examination that Ms. Sharma was not on duty at the relevant time. Rather we have on the record the statement of H. C. Saluja (Public Witness -5) who is the Administrative Officer of the Guru Nanak Eye Hospital that whereas Jai Chand was on duty on April 15, 1991 from 8. 00 p. m. to 7. 30 a. m. , Ms. Sharma was on duty on that day from 9 p. m. to 7. 30 a. m. The statements of sister A. Mathew and Dr. A. K. Gupta lend support to Ms. Sharma s version on material particulars. While the recording of Ms. Sharma s statement without delay and the seizure of