1. The sole accused, who stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) IPC in SC No.102/2014 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, is the appellant herein.

2. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 29/8/2013 at about 8.30 p.m. the accused, a man of 22 years, had committed rape of a 16 year old girl at a building No.XI/2014 of Noolpuzha Panchayath. It was alleged that consequently she became pregnant and on the basis of a complaint lodged by her, FIS was recorded and crime registered. After investigation, final report was laid for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012.

3. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed trial. On the side of the prosecution, the victim was examined as PW1 and sought corroboration from PWs 2 to 9 and documents marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On an evaluation of the entire evidence, the Court below found that the accused was not guilty under Section 5(j)(ii) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,2012 and acquitted him of that offence. However, he was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo RI for three months. He is undergoing sentence and the appeal is preferred from the jail.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned public prosecutor. Examined the records.

5. FIS was laid by the girl on 17/10/2013. It was recorded by PW7, who registered the case. In the FIS, it was stated that the victim was in love with the accused for the past two years. About four months prior to her complaint, they had spent one night in a coffee plantation and had physical relationship on the varanda of the nearby Homeo Hospital. She thereafter, missed her menstruation and a relative of her advised that she might have become pregnant. This was conveyed to her mother and thereafter FIS was laid.

6. PW1, the victim, deposed that she was studying in 9th Standard and that the incident happened during the previous year. She was studying in a Government High School and was in love with the accused. She stated that she had spent one night with the accused in a coffee estate of one Johny and thereafter they spent the whole night in the premises of the Homeo Hospital. She further stated that the accused had kissed her and had physical relationship once. It was committed in the veranda of nearby Homeo hospital.

7. The version of PW1 is sought to be corroborated by the testimony of PW2 and PW3. PW2 was her step mother. She had no direct information about the incident. Her evidence revealed only that one night prior to the incident, the victim had not come to the house. The next day morning she reached home and when PW2 enquired, she did not disclose anything and thereafter, went to the school. PW2 had showed the place of incident to the police, based on which the scene mahazar was prepared. PW3 was the Headmistress of the Government school, where the victim girl was studying in the 9th standard. PW3 deposed that the victim had told her that she missed her menstruation and she felt that she might be pregnant. The Headmistress and a teacher took her to the house and conveyed the incident to her step mother.

8. Evidence of PW1s to 3 indicates that the allegation of rape is sought to be established through the sole testimony of PW1. On material aspects touching upon the essential allegation, there is no corroboration on any aspect from the evidence of PWs 2 and PW3. It is consistent and settled law that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied on and be the basis for conviction if it consistent, free from embellishment and does not give rise to any suspicious circumstance. However, a minimum corroboration on the essential aspect, is sought as a matter of prudence. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that it is very brief and cryptic. The only e