The weight given to the evidence of a victim of sexual assault, the absence of the need for corroboration in such cases, and the avoidance of adding insult to injury by insisting on corroboration in sex offence cases.

( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged his conviction under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Basoda, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1982, dated 23-3-1983. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count; both the sentences to run concurrently.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that Leelabai (P. W. 12) was kidnapped on 18-4-1981 at 5. 00 a. m. from her house by the appellant. She was taken from place to place and was subjected to rape by the appellant. Consequently, he was arrested and was prosecuted. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Leelabai (P. W. 12) narrated the entire story before the trial Judge. Portions of her testimony were corroborated by the first information report lodged by Nannulal (P. W. 2) in police station Basoda D/-18-4-1981 at 5. 00 p. m. Bhanukumar (P. W. 3) is the brother of the prosecutrix; Kailash (P. W. 5) is the uncle of the prosecutrix and Smt. Mayabai (P. W. 10) is her mother. Jasram Sharma (P. W. 11), who was the headmaster of the school, where Leelabai (P. W. 12) was a student, produced the register in which her date of birth was recorded. According to this witness, the date of birth of Leelabai Jain was entered in the admission register as 2-2-1965. Thus, on the date of the incident, her age, according to the entry in the admission register, was 16 years 2 months and 16 days. The Trial Court has relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix and the appellants.

( 3 ) SHRI A. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that no positive evidence of rape was adduced by the prosecution during the trial and, hence, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 376, IPC. He has also contended that according to Dr. (Mrs.) Indu Jain (P. W. 1) the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse and, hence, it should have been concluded by the Trial Court that the prosecutrix had willingly left her home along with the appellant and that even if the appellant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix it was with her consent. Shri Shrivastava has also contended that reliance should not have been placed upon the testimony of Leelabai (P. W. 12) by the Trial Court and in absence of any corroboration on material particulars the appellant should not have been convicted.

( 4 ) ON persuasion, I have gone through the entire evidence on record and also the documents produced by the prosecution. The appellant had also examined Nathu (D. W. 1), Harnamsingh (D. W. 2) and Kallu (D. W. 3) in defence. Leelabai, the prosecutrix, has stated that in April, 1981 she was appearing for her examination. While she was studying in the early morning of the date of incident, she went outside her house to urinate. According to her, the appellant caught hold of her hand, gagged her mouth with cloth, terrified her with a knife, put her in a 'rickshaw' and took her across the railway line. There a bullockcart was standing. Leelabai was forcibly thrown into that bullock-cart and was taken away to the house of Malam Singh, the acquitted accused. According to her, the appellant detained her in the house of Malam Singh for 7 days and constantly raped her. She has vividly described the place where she was criminally assaulted. She has also vividly described the act of rape committed by the appellant on her. According to her, she was raped for about 10 to 15 timesduring her detention in the house of Malam Singh. From there she was taken to the house of Madho Singh, the acquitted accused, and was detained there for 7 days. In the house of Madho Singh, she was again raped by the appellant for about 8 or 10 times during that period. She was then transported to village Sander Bhander in a bullock-cart, where in a house she was kept under lock and key. There she was detained for 4-5 days and during that period the appellant criminally assaulted her for 8 or ten times. She was then taken to the house of Ramsingh and was detained there for 3 days and