Lack of corroborative medical evidence and absence of injury undermines the prosecution's case in establishing forcible rape.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19/09/2003 passed by the Special Judge, Vidisha in Special Case No. 71 of 2003 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under S.376(2) (g) IPC and sentenced them in the following manner : -

2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under : On 30/01/2003 at about 10.30 pm, Puran (P.W.5) who is the Samdhi of Antram (P.W.4) father of the prosecturix (P.W.3), lodged a complaint at Police Station, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha stating inter alia that the porseutrix has left her home in village Sakroli without informing anybody at about 4.00 pm on 30/01/2003. When they enquired regarding whereabouts, it was informed that she was seen with Pappu, appellant No.2 but the prosecutrix could not be found. Accordingly, a report of missing person was registered at No. 9/2003 which is marked as Ex.P.9. As per the information received by the police on 01/02/2003, the prosecutrix was traced from the house of Puran (P.W.5) and Panchnama was prepared which is marked as Ex.P.5. Accordingly the offence was registered which is marked as Ex.P.11. On enquiry, it was found that Dhanraj had kept the prosecutrix with her and the accused Pappu and Dhanraj committed the offence with the prosecturix.

3. On this report (Ex.P.11), the Police registered a case for the offence u/s 376(2) (g) IPC and S.3(2)(5) SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ?

4. During investigation, the accused appellants pappu and Dhanraj were got arrested on 03/02/2003. After usual investigation, Challan was submitted for the offence under S.376 IPC and S.3(2)(5) SC / ST Act against the accused / appellants in the court of Magistrate and from where, the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, Vidisha.

5. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to the Hospital where Dr. Hansa (P.W.2) examined. The prosecutrix was also examined and x - ray was taken to ascertain her age which was found to be around 18 years. Both the accused were also sent for medical examination.

6. On 03/06/2003, the learned Special Judge, Vidisha framed the charges against the accused appellants. The charge were read over to the accused appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution got examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants under S.313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, no witnesses were produced by the accused appellants. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, Vidisha vide judgment and order dated 19/09/2003 convicted the appellants for offence under S.376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced them in the manner as stated above holding interalia :

(i) That, there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix.

(ii) That, even though accused Dhanraj was the friend of the prosecutrix but there was no consent on the part of the prosecutrix, therefore, the offence stood proved.

(iii) That in view of S.114A of the Evidence Act , the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.3) on the point of rape was believed by the Trial Judge.

Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 19/03/2003, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.

7. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants : -

(i) That, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge against the appellants solely on the basis of solitary statement of prosecutrix (P.W.3) are wholly erroneous as the s