The judgment establishes the importance of corroborative evidence in cases of sexual assault and the need for consistency in witness statements to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Sitaram challenging the judgment dated 8.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 72/2007 whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I. & a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' R.I.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the prosecutrix Mst.M (PW6) lodged a written report Ex.P/10 at the P.S. Gordhan Vilas, Udaipur on 5.4.2007. As per the allegation levelled in the report, the prosecutrix had gone to graze her goats in the grazing ground near the water park. It is alleged that while she was grazing the goats, in the afternoon at about 3:00 PM, Mohan Lal s/o Bhaboota, Sitaram s/o Panna Lal (appellant herein) and Jagdish s/o Sunder, all by caste Gameti, came there. Sitaram called her and allegedly told that he and her brother Tulsi Ram had quarrelled and as to whether she was aware of this fact. As soon as the prosecutrix reached near the accused, Sitaram caught hold of her in his arms and took her towards the big water pipes lying nearby. It was further alleged that she was thrown down and her clothes were lifted. The accused opened his pant and thereafter forced himself on to her. She resisted saying that she should not be subjected to rape and that she would complaint about this after going back to her home but the accused did not relent and committed rape upon her. In the meantime, Mohanlal also came there and tried to misbehave her but Sitaram (appellant) told that he should not have intercourse with the prosecutrix. On this, Mohanlal did not subject the prosecutrix to rape. Jagdish also did not commit rape with the prosecutrix. It was further alleged that she started to shout on which Sitaram threatened her not to disclose this fact to anybody at her home. She reached home with difficulty and thereafter she lost her speech and became unconscious. It was further alleged that she allegedly regained consciousness in the previous evening and thereafter, she told about the incident to her brother and uncle. Thereafter, these persons took the prosecutrix to the police station for filing report. The prosecutrix disclosed her age to be 17 years in the police enquiry.On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 113/2007 was registered and investigation commenced. The accused was apprehended. The clothes of the prosecutrix as well as the accused were seized. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination and as per the medico-legal report (Ex.P/7), her hymen was found to be old torn. No opinion was given regarding rape. As per the age examination report of the prosecutrix, she was found to be above 16 years and below 17 years of age. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and against Mohanlal for the offences under Sections 376, 342 and 354/120B I.P.C. The accused Jagdish was charge-sheeted in the Juvenile Court being under 18 years of age.The case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur for trial. Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. whereas co-accused Mohanlal was charged for the offences under Sections 376, 342 and 354/120B I.P.C. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution but did not choose to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The learned subordinate court at the conclusion of the trial, whilst acquitting the co-accused Mohanlal, proceeded to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him as above. Hence, this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently conten