In cases of sexual assault, the testimony of the prosecutrix should be accepted unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate seeking corroboration. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, amounts to adding insult to injury.

MOHD. YAMIN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal on behalf of the State and leave to appeal was granted on 28-7-80. Before proceeding with the case I may narrate the facts as follows. ON 5-1-79 at about 12. 30 A. M. Mst. Chothi along with her husband went to police station and reported that she had gone to collect fodder at about 5. 00 P. M. When she was going to the field of Hemji, accused Nahar Singh and Chell Singh met her in the way. Nahar Singh caught hold of her and felled her on the ground. She made hue and cry but this accused pressed her and started sexual intercourse with her. Her mouth was gagged. She could not make further hue and cry. It was Nahar Singh who covered both of them with a cloth belonging to him. After rape was committed by Nahar Singh it was Chell Singh who also committed the same act with her. Dhanna Kumhar had seen the accused persons committing this nefarious act and therefore, both the accused respondents ran away. She suffered injuries on her cheek. She thereafter went weeping to her husband and narrated the story. Hemta and Gena also reached there whom story was narrated and then the matter was reported to the police. The case under Section 376, I. P. C. was registered. During investigation "ghaghara" of Mst Chothi was seized vide Ex. P-6. Site was inspected and plan Ex. P-4 was prepared. Mst. Chothi was medically examined. Nahar Singh was also medically examined and after investigation challan was submitted before the concerned Magistrate who committed the accused to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirohi. On 17-8-79 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 376, I. P. C. against the both the respondents who denied their indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused respondents were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. They produced D. W. 1 Gulab Singh and D. W. 2 Narpat Singh in their defence. After hearing both the parties the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Shri Matadeen Gupta acquitted the accused respondents vide his judgment dated 15-2-80. It is against this judgment that State has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) I have heard learned P. P. as well as learned counsel for the accused respondents and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel has cited Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan; (1991) 1 SCC 166 : (1990 Cri LJ 2276) wherein it has been observed that interference by this Court in judgment acquittal by the trial Court is called for in case of perversity or misreading of evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited Deenath v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 674 : (1980 Cri LJ 921) wherein it has been observed that if the trial Courts view is reasonably possible. High Court should not reverse the order of the acquittal merely on the ground that a different view of evidence was possible. Learned P. P. agrees with these propositions of law but has relied on AIR 1996 SC 1393 : (1996 Cri LJ 1728) State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and has submitted that the testimony of prosecutrix should be accepted. He submitted that in view of this citation testimony of the prosecutrix is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitated looking for corroboration of her statement. this Court should find on difficulty to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The Honble Apex Court has further observed in this citation that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. So what I have to see in this case is if the learned Sessions Judge was right in not relying upon the statement of Smt. Chothi who is prime witness of the prosecution?

( 3 ) P. W.-5 Mst. Chothi was examined on 21-11-80 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge before whom she stated that her husband had sent her to collect fodder from the fie