The central legal point established in the judgment is the evaluation of the victim's testimony, the need for corroboration, and the significance of supporting evidence in cases of difficulty accepting the testimony.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Palo, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.01.2001 pronounced by learned Session Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No. 152/1998 by which the learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents for the offences under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution story before the trial court, in brief, was that the prosecutrix along with her husband Kaushal Kishore lodged a report at Police Station Pandokhar, Datia on 04.03.1998 that the prosecutrix had gone, to bring grass for feeding the cattle, nearby the field of Chandan Singh where there was crop of gram nut, accused Gulab Singh armed with "Kulhadi" and accused Pappu armed with "Lathi" caught her. They pulled her into the field and turn by turn committed sexual intercourse with her, her slippers were torn, a Bichhua (short of ornaments used on the feets) was missed.

3. Police Station Pandokhar registered the crime, investigated the incident and filed the charge-sheet. After committal, learned Sessions Judge framed and explained offence under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC to the accused persons. The accused/respondents abjured the guilt. In their examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they claimed that they are innocent. They have been falsely implicated due to enmity.

4. The learned Trial Court pronounced the impugned judgment on 20.01.2001 and acquitted the accused persons.

5. It is claimed by the appellant/prosecution that the evidence of the prosecutrix has been corroborated by the statement of her husband. After his returning to the village, the prosecutrix lodged the report. Therefore, the delay was properly explained. In the case of rape, it is not essential that other witnesses be examined. The evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be overlooked, therefore, the impugned judgment is bad in law. The statement of the prosecutrix is also supported by the medical evidence, hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the appellant and perused the record.

7. To bring home an offence under Section 376 of IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused persons had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has propounded in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and others, 1996 (2) SCC 384 that:-

"Unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused when her testimony inspires an confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury."

8. Therefore, it is very clear that there is no rule of law that testimony of rape victim cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle or probability just like the testimony of any other witness. However, if the Court may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix of its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which lend assurance to her testimony.

9. The prosecutrix is a grown up married woman, therefore, her statement regarding the so called rape needs corroboration specially when there has been enmity between the parties.

10. No doubt, in case of forcible sexual intercourse corroboration is not a rule of law but in the present case when it is admitted that there is enmity between the parties and these are many contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1), therefore, it needs to be examined very thoroughly.

11. The report was lodged one day after the incident. The delay of lodging the report has been explained by the prosecutrix saying that the incident took place at about 5-6 in the evening and her husband was not present in the village