The court reinforced that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible, can be sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases.

1. In this appeal filed under S.374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.10.2014, passed by the Sessions Judge (Atrocity) Bastar at Jagdalpur, C.G. in S.T. No.37/2014, whereby and whereunder the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: -

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.01.2010 at 9 pm, prosecutrix, aged about 31 years, a married woman along with one Sangeeta after returning from labour work was waiting for taxi near Sheetal Hotel, Jagdalpur. At that time, the accused / appellant (mason of contractor Gopal) came there and took the prosecutrix in his bicycle and went towards the Sun City (a construction building) where appellant committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will and also threatened her to kill. After committing the sexual intercourse, appellant left the Prosecutrix in the house of contractor Gopal at village Titarkuti where prosecutrix stayed in night and on next day she returned to her house and narrated the incident to her parents stating that the accused / appellant, knowing her as a tribal woman, deliberately raped her. Thereafter, on 07.01.2010 at 13:30 pm, FIR Ex.P - 4 was lodged by the prosecutrix against the accused / appellant and the offence was registered against the accused / appellant. Prosecutrix was medically examined by PW - 1 Dr. Manisha Goyal who found the following injuries on her person vide Ex.P - 1: -
1. Contusion mark of 5 x 4 cm present in left scapular region.
2. Lacerated wound in left molar bone 2 x 1cm.
3. Lacerated wound in right forearm 1/2 x 1/2 cm. She opined that no definite opinion about rape can be given, she is habitual for intercourse. Pubic Hair, two vaginal smear and cloth with blood stain of the prosecutrix were sent to lab for examination. According to the Doctor for blood, lab examination has to be done to confirm menstrual blood. During investigation, peti - coat of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P - 2 and slide was also seized vide Ex.P - 3. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P - 6. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL. Caste Certificate of the prosecutrix was also seized vide Ex.P - 7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge sheet was filed against appellant under S.376, S.506 of IPC and under S.3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth ''the Act of 1989'').

3. The trial Court framed the charge under S.376 (1), 506 Part - II of IPC and under S.3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. against the accused appellant which was denied by him and he prayed for trial.

4. So as to hold the appellant guilty prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses i.e. PW - 1 Dr. Manisha Goyal, PW - 2 Sukhman, PW - 3 Prosecutrix, PW - 4 Cheti, PW - 5 Naniram, PW - 6 Ku. Sangeeta Feyam, PW - 7 Smt. Babyana, PW - 8 Smt. Indu Sharma, PW - 9 Hemant Feyam and PW - 10 Smt. Gayatri Singh. The accused / appellant was examined under S.313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. However, no defence witness has been examined by him. After completion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that no rape has been committed by him with the prosecutrix. He also submits that the trial Court has n