The importance of judging the veracity of the prosecutrix's testimony in light of the attending circumstances and the need for corroborative evidence in cases of rape.

( 1 ) THE appellant Gokul was convicted under Section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years by judgment dated 17-7-1981 passed by Sri J. N. Bansal, the then Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in S. T. No. 46 of 1981.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts may be taken note of. Smt. Raina Bai was a married lady. On 22-8-1980 she had gone from her village Torhi to the market within Police Station Bar, District Lalitpur to make sundry purchases. She had been accompanied by Gomti and Shyam Lal. She happened to be separated from them in the market and when she was about to return to her village, the appellant Gokul who was her uncle through village kinship met her and persuaded her to return to the village with him. She agreed as it was evening time. When both of them were passing by the temple of Bankhandi Hanuman near culvert, the appellant dragged her towards the culvert and threw her behind the bushes. Then he committed rape upon her forcibly in spite of her resistance. He had gagged her mouth so as to guard against escape of any cry from her. Two villagers, namely, Chauda son of Umrao Chaudhary and Shyam Lal son of Kunji happened to pass thereby and were attracted to the spot. When they challenged the appellant, he ran away. She returned to the village and narrated the occurrence to her mother. Her father was not there in the village on that date and as such she could not venture out to the police station to make the report during night time. The report was got scribed by her by one Sri Pratap Singh Yadav and lodged at the police station the next day at 9. 30a. m. A case under Section 376 of I. P. C. was registered and the investigation followed. She was subjected to medical examination on 23-8-1980 on 6. 10 p. m. Dr. (Smt.) Surendra Kaur P. W. 6 had medically examined her. There was no mark of injury on her body or private parts. Hymen was torn at 3-4- places and old healed tears were present. Vagina admitted two fingers easily. Vaginal smear was taken and sent to pathological test. She was habitual to sexual intercourse. As per supplementary report, no spermatozoa was seen in the vaginal smear. No opinion about rape could be given.

( 3 ) DEFENCE was of denial. The appellant, however, admitted to be related to the prosecutrix as her uncle. According to him, his father had some dispute with the father of the prosecutrix in connection with a wall and that was the cause of his false implication. He also stated under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that the prosecutrix had been married long back. He also produced his own father Nanda as D. W. 1 to say that there was dispute between him and Hariya father of the prosecutrix over a wall and he had lodged some reports at the police station in this behalf , which he proved.

( 4 ) THE witnesses examined by the prosecution were eight in number including Doctor, Investigating Officer and formal witnesses. The star witness was the prosecutrix, Smt. Raina Bai PW 4 herself. Two others, namely, Shyam Lal PW 2 and Chauda PW 3 were also examined as witnesses who had reached the spot and challenged the appellant and with the prosecutrix had returned to the village from the spot. But they chose not to support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.

( 5 ) THE trial Judge relied upon the testimony of prosecutrix Raina Bai PW 4 and found her testimony to be trustworthy. Relying on her version and other material circumstances, he found the appellant to be guilty, convicting and sentencing him as stated earlier.

( 6 ) I have heard Sri. P. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. from the side of the State in opposition of the appeal. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the circumstances on record indicate that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and as such no offence can be deemed to be committed by the appellant within the ambit of law. On the other hand, the submission of learned A. G. A. is that the case of the prosecuti