In a rape case, the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be made the sole basis for conviction if it is accepted as true and free from suspicion. However, if there are inconsistencies in the prosecution case and no medical evidence to corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix, the conviction cannot be sustained.

D. M. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years by the Sessions Judge, Phulbani assails the order of conviction.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case is, on 29-7-1985 during day time the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) had been to the Tumudibandha weekly market under Kothagarh Police Station in the district of Phulbani. About p. m. she returned from the market. While proceeding towards her village, on the way near a simili tree the appellant caught hold of her hands and dragged her aside, laid her down on the ground and committed rape in spite of her protest and resistance. Reaching her mothers house, she narrated the incident to her mother. Though a panchayat was convened on the following day to which the appellant was called, he refused to attend. Thereafter, the matter was reported at the Tumudibandha Out-Post and after investigation, chargesheet was submitted.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, the allegation was tendentious. He pleaded that he was to pay her a sum of Rs. 15/- towards the charges for tending cattle, but when she demanded the money and since the appellant expressed his inability to pay it immediately, she foisted this false case.

( 4 ) MR. J. M. Das learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring out a case of rape in the absence of the medical evidence. Mr. Mishra, the learned standing Counsel on the other hand supported the finding of the trial Court. The rival contentions need examination.

( 5 ) I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the evidence on record. Because of the glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution case, I am of the view that the conviction cannot be sustained. The reasons being as follows :- p. W. 1 is the prosecutrix P. W. 2 is the mother. P. W. 4 is her brother-in-law being the elder brother of her husband. Admittedly, P. W. 1 is a married lady and as is evident from her deposition her age at the relevant time was 28 years. The material part of her evidence before the court was as follows :- she stated, on the date of occurrence she was returning from the market at 5 p. m. along with one Sureswar and P. W. 4, the appellant and some others. She found that by mistake she had left some articles in the weekly market and therefore keeping her bundle of articles in the Tumudibandha hospital, she returned to the market and again came back with Kerosene but found her packet missing. She could come to know from Sureswar that the appellant had taken them. She found the appellant near a river. She collected the articles from him and started going towards the village. Little thereafter she was suddenly caught hold by the appellant and thereafter she was forced to have sexual intercourse without her consent. After that she went to her mother where she narrated about the misdeed of the appellant. Her mother told the matter to the ward member. She further stated in the examination in chief to have sustained injury on her mouth and hack side of the shoulder, left hand and thigh. She was examined by the doctor. The material part of her evidence in the cross-examination was as follows :- she sustained bleeding injury on both the sides of shoulders in the back, mouth and she had shown this to the A. S. I. She also mentioned the injuries to the scribe. She admitted in the cross-examination that she and her husband used to tend bullocks of the accused. She further admitted to have married first to one Padma Naik with whom she spent about 2 years and had a child. Thereafter there was desertion and two years thereafter she married her present husband Srikanta, she denied the defence suggestion that she was lady of questionable character. In the night on the date of occurrence she did not disclose the occurrence to anybody other than her mother.

( 6 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of P. W. 1 and stated that on the date of occurrence at about 5 p. m. 1 re