The sole testimony of a victim in a rape case may suffice for conviction if deemed credible, despite inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness, legality and judicial propriety of the impugned judgment dated 27^th November, 2007 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar, Ganjam confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 13^th September, 2002 directed in Sessions Case No.9 of 2000 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar on the grounds inter alia that such decision convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is legally not tenable and hence, the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside with in the interest of justice.

2. According to the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place on 21^st June, 1999 at a time when the victim, who had been to a nearby jungle for collection of mushroom, was picked-up by the petitioner and was subjected to rape. In connection with the alleged incident, a report was lodged at the local PS. The said report was lodged on 22^nd June, 1999. Subsequent to the FIR lodged, Bhanjanagar PS Case No.112 (14) dated 22^nd June, 1999 was registered under Section 376 IPC. The investigation was commenced whereafter chargesheet was filed under the alleged offence against the petitioner in the month of October, 1999. In course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited fourteen documents in support of its case, whereas, the petitioner examined three witnesses in order to defend the charge levelled against him. Considering the evidence of both the sides, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and directed him to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence and also compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the victim in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. with the detention period being set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Against the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed the appeal before the learned court below, however, the same was dismissed accepting the prosecution case and also the view expressed by the learned Trial Court. Against the order of dismissal in the appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court with the present revision on the following grounds, such as, (a) the impugned judgment dated 13^th September, 2002 by the learned court below is illegal, arbitrary and against the weight of evidence and also devoid of merit, hence, the same is liable to be set aside; (b) the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the delay in lodging of the FIR which creates a serious doubt about the alleged incident and also the credibility of the prosecution case; (c) there has been no independent corroboration to the sexual assault by the petitioner as all other material witnesses belong to the family of the victim and are highly interested witnesses; (e) the learned Trial Court erred in convicting the petitioner on the basis of the evidence of such interested witnesses without independent corroboration not even supported by medical evidence, hence, the decision is not sustainable in the eye of law; (f) the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence while dealing with a prosecution has been completely lost sight by the learned Trial Court as a case is required to be pr