Reliance on uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix is unsafe.

The appellant accused has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S. C. No. 341 of 1996 by the judgment dated 19-12-1997 convicting the appellant under Section 376 I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting the appellant under Section 506 (ii) I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. This is an unfortunate case wherein, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence of sexual assault inside a sacred place viz., Dharga.

3. The accused faced the trial in the following backdrop

(a) P. W. 1 is the prosecutrix in this case. P. W. 2 is the mother of the prosecutrix, P. W. 1. The father of the

(c) Copyright with All India Reporter Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur prosecutrix is running a cycle tube puncture shop and the mother of the prosecutrix, P. W. 2, is running a tiffin stall. The accused is a resident of the same street as that of the prosecutrix, P. W. 1 and her mother, P. W. 2. and opposite to his house he is having a portion of a Dharga premises and used the same as a rice grinding shop and he used to accept the rice from the public for grinding with charges. On 7-2-1995, at 6.00 p.m., P. W. 1 went to the place where the accused was having his rice grinding shop and gave rice for grinding and the accused said that she can come collect the rice batter on the next day morning. Thereafter, P. W. 1 went to the house of the accused on the next day morning at 3.00 a. m. and the accused asked her to go to the Dharga and take the rice batter from there, which was kept by him. When P. W. 1 went inside the Dharga the accused also followed her and closed the doors of the Dharga and when P. W. 1 questioned, the accused put a cloth on her mouth, pushed her down and removed her dresses and committed sexual assault on her. Thereafter, the accused is also said to have threatened P. W. 1 that if she informs anyone, he will kill her. P. W. 1 started weeping and left from that place. As she was frightened due to the threat of the accused, she has not informed anyone about the occurrence including her parents. P. W. 1 claimed that she had informed her parents about the occurrence only on 14-2-1995. Thereafter, P. W. 2, mother of P. W. 1 and father of P. W. 1 went and questioned the accused along with P. W. 1 and even at that time the accused is said to have threatened all of them with dire consequences. On the same day, P. W. 1 went to D-2, Anna Salai Police Station along with her mother P. W. 2 and father.

(b) P. W. 8, the Inspector of Police, stated that P. W. 1 came on 14-2-1995 and informed him about the occurrence and the same was recorded by a person accompanied with her. Ex. P1 is the report and on receipt of the report, Ex. P1, P. W. 8 registered the case in Crime No. 420 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (ii) I. P. C. Ex. P. 12 is the First Information Report.

(c) P. W. 8 took up investigation in this case and he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the rough sketch, Ex. P. 13. He also prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex. P. 14. Thereafter, he has examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and others and recorded their statements. He has also recovered clothes, M. Os. 1 to 3, produced by P. W. 1.

(d) On 14-2-1995 at 9.00 p. m., P. W. 8 arrested the accused and in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession of the accused, Ex. P.1, P. W. 8 recovered M. O. 4, lungi and M. O. 5, knife under Ex. P.17. Thereafter, he has sent P. W. 1 for medical examination through the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate under Ex. P. 6, Requisition. He has sent the accused for medical examination under Ex. P. 9, requisition.

(e) The doctor, P. W. 6, attached to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, re