Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2002 · The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 An application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 27.01.1999 of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Sessions Case No.5 of 1997 and the judgment and order dated 01.07.2004 of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2002. -------------- Mina Rao Nag ..…. Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa …… Opp. Party --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Nalinikanta Dash, Adv. For Opp. Party ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Ms. Samapika. Mishra, A.S.C. CORAM: HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 30.05.2025 Savitri Ratho, J This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 01.07.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.176 of 2002 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gunupur, confirming the conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”), by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur in Sessions Case CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 1 of 26 No. 5 of 1997 by judgment and order dated 27.01.1999 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (in short “R.I.”) for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment to under R.I. for further one month (by reducing the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial court) The petitioner also challenges the judgment and order dated 27.01.1999 of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gunupur, convicting him for commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment to undergo R.I. for further one month. The learned trial court had directed the period of detention as UTP to be set off against the sentence awarded to the petitioner and the fine amount, if realized to be given to the victim (P.W.1) as compensation. PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that, on 28.08.1996 at about 5.00 p.m. at village Samadala while the victim (P.W.1) was returning to her house after attending the call of nature, the petitioner forcibly dragged her to the nearby bushes sat on her and forcibly committed rape on her. CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 2 of 26 DEFENCE PLEA 3. The defence plea was of denial of the prosecution case and false implication. WITNESSES 4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The defence did not examine any witness. P.W.1 is the victim (name withheld). P.W.2 Maldore Bhima, P.W.4 Basari Bala, P.W.5 Basari Dhanarjay and P.W.7 Mina Rao Maladora are the independent witnesses. P.W.3 Narala Krishna, P.W.6 Narala Mutiala and P.W.8 Narala Narasingh are the relations of the victim. P.W.9 Ganesh Nag, P.W.10 P. Jagannath Patra and P.W.11 Bhagat Bathara are the witnesses to seizure and have not supported the seizure. P.W.12 Laxmidhar Dalu and P.W.14 Debi Prasad Dash are the Investigating Officers and P.W.13 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mund is the doctor. EXHIBITS AND M.Os. 5. The prosecution exhibited twelve documents. Exts.1, 2 and 7 are the seizure lists, Ext.3 is the written report, Ext.4 is the spot map, Ext.5 is the carbon copy of the requisition, Ext.6 is the carbon copy of the injury report, Exts.8 and 9 are the report of CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 3 of 26 P.W.13, Ext.10 is the query made by I.O., Ext.11 is the crime details report and Ext.12 is the C.E. report. The prosecution proved five material objects. M.O. I is the saree, M.O.II is the blouse, M.O.III is the towel, M.O.IV is a bottle containing urethral swab and M.O.V is the bottle containing vaginal Swab. The defence did exhibited one documents. Ext.A is the intimation.
Facts
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT 6. The learned trial Court on analysis of materials and evidence on record came to a conclusion that the prosecution has conclusively proved and established beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution case and held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced him in the manner mentioned earlier. APPELLATE COURT JUDGMENT 7. The learned Appellate Court did not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner and maintained the conviction and dismissed the appeal. But while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, found on verification of the record found that after judgment the petitioner was in custody on CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 4 of 26 27.01.1999 and though the bail orders had been passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada, he did not go on bail within the stipulated time, but after obtaining fresh bail order from the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada he got himself released on bail on 02.12.1999. Besides he had remained in custody as an UTP, during trial for some days. Considering all these aspects and as the occurrence took place on 28.08.1996 i.e. more than 8 years ago, modified the sentence of imprisonment from seven years to five years R.I. and maintained the sentence of fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month and the direction to pay the fine amount after realization as compensation to the victim lady. SUBMISSIONS 8.
Legal Reasoning
11. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained.” CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 15 of 26 ANALYSIS 11. It is not disputed that a conviction under Section – 376 of the I.P.C can be based on the sole testimony, of a prosecutrix, provided her evidence inspires confidence and does not suffer from any basic infirmity. 12. For deciding whether the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecutrix is reliable and whether it has been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, it is necessary to carefully scrutinize her evidence and the evidence of the other witnesses. 13. Other than P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.11 who were the seizure witnesses, the other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTRIX 14. P.W.1 the victim lady has fully supported and corroborated the prosecution case and testified that while she was returning to her house after attending the call of nature, the accused detained her on the way. She protested, but the accused forcibly took her by catching hold of her neck and hand to a nearby bushy and dragged her wearing clothes and made her naked and due to such dragging, her wearing clothes were torn. She also stated that CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 16 of 26 the accused sat over her and committed rape by penetrating his penis into her vagina and when she pushed and kicked him by shouting, the accused fled away. She stated that there was discharge of semen during the rape. She also stated that after the incident, she had been to her mother-in-laws’ house and informed her about the incident and while narrating the incident her mother- in-law was alone in the house. She also stated that she reported the incident at Jagadalpur Out-Post and one Bhima (P.W.2) and Krishna (P.W.3) and another person of her village have accompanied her to the Out-Post and she orally reported the incident which was reduced into writing by the police and the contents of F.I.R. was read over and explained after which she put her R.T.I. She has stated that she was medically examined on police requisition by the M.O. She also identified M.O.I and M.O.II i.e. saree and blouse and her wearing apparels at that time of committing rape and the accused was wearing one white Gamuchha and was holding one towel. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she belongs Dora caste and accused is Damba by caste and they are residing in separate sahis. She denied that there was exchange of hot words with “Damba” caste people for taking water from boring point CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 17 of 26 directly. She denied that on the occurrence day the accused came to the boring point (tubewe11) to fetch water to which she objected and that she told her caste people and that her caste people had assaulted the accused. She however stated that some of the prosecution witnesses have been released on bail from the court of J.M.F.C., Bissamcuttack and the case is still pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bissamcuttack. She stated that there was no mud on the place of occurrence, but it was a soft land, the accused dragged her upto 20 feets. The accused dragged her saree, as a result it was tore. The under-wear cloth behind the saree was also removed. Before attending the call of nature, she had removed her blouse with a view to take bath and was holding the blouse in her hand. She stated that while the accused slept over her, her hands were free and the accused at the relevant time was pressing her chest by both of his hands. The accused was penetrating till ejaculation. The above incident took place within three to four minutes and at the relevant time she did not ty either to bite him or to make any scratch by her nails. She reported the above facts orally at the Jagadalpur Out-Post in Telugu language which police wrote in Oriya. She denied not to have stated in her F.I.R. and before the police that there was discharge of semen while committing rape on CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 18 of 26 her and that the accused forcibly took her by catching hold of her neck to a nearby bush and that while the accused was committing rape on her, she pushed and kicked him. She also stated that during life time of her husband there was a dispute between her husband and the accused due to a piece of land that dispute is still in existence. She however denied that a false case has been foisted against the accused. 15. After going through her evidence including her cross examination, except for minor inconsistencies whether she lodged FIR in Oriya or Telegu, I find no reason to doubt her testimony. EVIDENCE OF OTHER WITNESSES 16. P.W.3 Narala Krishna, who is one of the brother-in-law of victim has stated that at the relevant time P.W.1 came to his house and narrated the incident before his mother and he was present at that time along with his wife and that his mother told about the said incident to P.W.8 Narasingh and the said Narasingh went to the house of P.W.2 Bhima and thereafter Narasingh and others went to the house of accused to enquire into the matter and sometime thereafter hearing hullah he came out and found the said persons returning and they told that the accused assaulted Sukadev. CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 19 of 26 In his cross-examination he has admitted that he has not seen the actual occurrence. P.W.6 Narala Mutiala, the wife of P.W.8 has stated that on the occurrence day evening, P.W.1 came to her house crying and narrated the incident to her mother-in-law and to her (P.W.6) and P.W.1 told that the accused forcibly committed rape on her by dragging to a nearby bushy. P.W.8 Narala Narasingh the other brother-in-law of informant has also corroborated the said evidence. P.W.2 Maldore Bhima, P.W.4 Basari Bala and P.W.5 Basari Dhanarjay who are some of the co-villagers have also stated that Narala Narasingh (P.W.8) told them about the incident. P.W.7 Mina Rao Maladora, in his evidence has stated that at the relevant time while he was passing to his land, she found P.W.1 returning to her house crying and he heard from the family members of P.W.1 that the accused forcibly committed rape on her. P.W.12 Laxmidhar Dalu was the A.S.I. of Police of Jagadalpur Out-Post. He has stated that P.W.1 came to the Jagadalpur Outpost and orally lodged information by narrating the entire incident which he reduced to writing. she put her RTI on the report Ext.3 after the contents were read over and explained to her CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 20 of 26 and she understood the contents. He sent the report to the Amabodola Police Station and the case was registered and he was entrusted with the investigation. He examined P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. Next morning he visited the spot prepared spot map Ext.4 examined other witnesses issued requisition to the Medical Officer, Amabadola Hospital for examination of the victim. On 30.08.1996, he seized the wearing apparel of the victim vide Seizure list Ext.1 He seized one towel ascertained with blood M.O.III of the accused vide Seizure list Ext.7 on 31.08.1996, he handed over investigation to OIC Devi Prasad Das P.W.14. In cross examination he says he does not know Telugu and the victim reported the incident in Oriya language. P.W.1 coming to Police Station reporting orally and he reduced the same into writing. He also stated about the details of his investigation which have been indicated earlier. In his cross- examination he stated that he identified the seized saree as M.O.I and the blouse M.O.II (both are of victim-lady) and the seized towel of the accused M.O.III. He denied that the informant reported in Telugu language and without understanding the contents he reduced it into writing implicating the accused in this case. CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 21 of 26 P.W.13 Dr. Ashok Kumar Mund, in his evidence has stated that on examination of P.W.1 (the victim), be found one linear abrasion with dark brown scab inch long on the upper part of the right scapula, one linear abrasion with dark brown scab half an inch long on the back of the right arm two inches below the shoulder joint and one abrasion with dark brown scab half an inch long on the medial side of left leg just above the ankle joint and opined that the injuries were simple in nature. He also stated that no injury was found on her private parts and no sign of recent sexual intercourse was detected and no foreign particles were found on the public hair, vulva and inside the vagina and no sign of any seminal stain was found over the thighs, vulva and the public hair and no smegma was found inside the vagina and spermatozoa was not detected on microscopic examination of the vaginal smear and vaginal swab and smear has been preserved and stated Ext-8 is the medical examination report. He also stated that on 30.08.1996, (the same day) he examined the accused and found two lacerated wounds, one on the head and another on the right ear, 8 bruises with abrasion found on the different parts of the body which have been described in detail in the other injury report. He also stated that no injury was found on the penis. There was collection of CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 22 of 26 smegma around the corona gland is no foreign particle was detected on the penis or in the public hairs, there was no matting of public hairs. No mark of any seminal stain was detected on the penis, scrotum and inside of the thigh and no sign of any venereal disease was found on the penis and stated that Ext.9 is his report. He also stated that the I.O. made a query and replied that the injuries found on the victim lady can be caused due to resistance of the victim when she was dragged, laid down and raped and the injuries can be caused due to the offensive act of the accused while including the casual crime and injury Nos.1 and 2 can be friction against any blunt pointed object clue to fall on the around. P.W.14 Debi Prasad Dash was the O.I.C. of Ambadola Police Station, in his evidence has stated about the investigation conducted by him. In his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot speak Telugu. He did not ask the victim in Telugu language. The chemical examination report under Ext.12 reveals that semen stains were not detected in the seized saree, towel and blouse and urethral swab of the accused and virginal swab of the victim. 17. The contention as the victim does not know Odia and the I.Os. do not know Telugu, the prosecution case should be rejected is not tenable as the FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 23 of 26 under Section 161 Crl.P.C. are to be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction and are not substantive evidence. The defence has not been able bring out any vital contradiction in the evidence of P.W1 the victim inspite of her lengthy cross examination. 18. The victim being a married lady, absence of recent signs of sexual intercourse on her private parts are natural. For the same reason, there can be absence of injury on the penis of the accused. Absence of injuries do not in any way affect the prosecution case. 19. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the injuries sustained by the victim on her back are not possible on a muddy surface have been made only to be rejected as the victim has stated that she had been dragged to the bushes. P.W.13 the Doctor has corroborated her evidence. 20. Minor contradictions are natural and do not affect the genuineness of the prosecution case. There was some ill feeling between the family of the victim and the petitioner, and a case instituted during the lifetime of her husband was pending was pending but that cannot be a ground for disbelieving her evidence. In view of such background her evidence is required to be CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 24 of 26 scrutinized carefully to ensure that she is not making false allegations but her evidence cannot be mechanically rejected. 21. Evidence of P.W.1, the victim is corroborated by the evidence of her relatives – P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5. P.W.7 has stated that she found the victim returning crying and subsequently learned about the rape. It is natural that the victim did not tell him about the rape before informing her family members. 22. The evidence of P.Ws.3, 5 and 8 corroborate the evidence of the victim. Doctor has opined that the injuries on the victim are possible due to resistance of a victim who has fallen down and is being dragged, laid down and raped. 23. The doctor P.W.13 has stated that he examined the accused on 30.08.1996 and found two lacerated injuries -one on the head and one on the right ear. This also indicate of resistance by the victim of recent sexual intercourse corroborate her evidence. 24. I find no apparent error or illegality in the reasoning of the two Courts nor do I find that the two Courts have ignored any evidence. As I find no justification to interfere with the findings of the two Courts or their judgments, the conviction of the petitioner for commission of offence under Section – 376 of IPC is confirmed. CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 25 of 26 25. The learned Appellate Court has already dealt with the petitioner lightly by reducing the substantive sentence imposed for commission of the offence under Section 376 of IPC from seven years rigorous imprisonment to five years. There is no scope for further reduction of the sentence to less than five years. The sentence imposed by the learned appellate court is therefore confirmed. 26. The Criminal Revision is dismissed. 27. The petitioner is on bail. He should surrender within a period of eight weeks to serve out the remainder of his sentence. 28. The trial court records be returned to the learned trial court alongwith a copy of this judgment. ……………………… (Savitri Ratho) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 30th May, 2025. S.K. Behera, Senior Stenographer. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 12-Jun-2025 19:34:58 CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 26 of 26
Arguments
Challenging the impugned judgments, Mr. Nalinikanta Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted:- i) the medical evidence contradicts the evidence of the prosecutrix, as it has been opined by P.W.13 the doctor that there is no sign of recent sexual intercourse. But both the Courts failed to consider that the medical evidence of P.W.13 does not support the allegation of rape and thus there was no corroborative evidence to support the allegation of the victim-P.W.1. CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 5 of 26 ii) The injuries found on the person of the P.W.1, as suggested by P.W.13, are possible by a blunt pointed object and rough surface, but were not possible on fall over soft sandy soil. As P.W.1 categorically admitted in her deposition that, it was a rainy season and on the date of occurrence there was rain, so the question of her sustaining any injury did not arise. So, the injuries found on P.W.1 were not possible. iii) Bothe the Courts have failed to consider the possibility of false implication by P.W.1, despite evidence of a prior case filed by the accused against the prosecution party, and P.W.1 admitting in her deposition regarding longstanding caste-based animosity and a civil dispute. iv) P.W.1 has stated that the incident occurred 30 feet from the village and near the place of occurrence cultivators were transplanting paddy but the prosecution has failed to produce any independent witnesses who should have been alerted by the tussle between the P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.7 has stated he saw P.W.1 coming by crying while on his way to his land. If his statement and statement of P.W.1 are read together, then P.W.7 should have also seen the accused, fleeing from the spot, as the place of occurrence is only 30 feet from the village, but he has not seen him. CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 6 of 26 v) The victim does not know Oriya and P.Ws.12 and 14 did not know Telugu, so the circumstances behind lodging of FIR is doubtful. vi) He has further submitted that the petitioner was all along on bail during trial as well as during appeal and has never mutualized the liberty granted to him, so if his conviction is maintained, the substantive sentence may be reduced. 9. Ms. S. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State opposed the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have rendered their findings after a thorough and fair evaluation of the evidence on record, for which no interference in the judgments is called for. She has further submitted that the testimony of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) is consistent and credible, and therefore her statement alone is sufficient to base a conviction and corroboration is not necessary as per settled legal principles. The absence of recent signs of sexual intercourse in the medical report does not by itself discredit the entire prosecution case, especially when there is a reasonable explanation and delay in medical examination. She has further submitted that minor discrepancies or the non- examination of supposed independent witnesses cannot be held to CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 7 of 26 be fatal to the case of the prosecution when the testimony of victim is cogent and reliable. As regards the plea of enmity, she has submitted that even if it is proved, it is a double-edged weapon and does not entitle the accused to an acquittal could have been reason for. The Courts below have rightly considered these aspects. She has relied on the following cases in support of her submission:- (i) Rameshwar vs. The State of Rajasthan : 1952 AIR SC 54. (ii) State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raghubir Singh : 1993 (2) SCC 622. JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS 10. In the case of Rameshwar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “The first question is whether the law requires corroboration in these cases. Now the Evidence Act now here says so. On the other hand, when dealing with the testimony of an accomplice, though it says in section 114 (b) that the Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars, it makes it clear in section 133 that- "An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 8 of 26 upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice." Now a woman who has been raped is not an accomplice. If she was ravished she is the victim of an outrage. If she consented there is no offence unless she is a married woman, in which case questions of adultery may arise. But adultery presupposes consent and so is not on the same footing as rape. In the case of a girl who is below the age of consent, her consent will not matter so far as the offence of rape is concerned, but if she consented her testimony will naturally be as suspect as that of an accomplice. So also in the case of unnatural offences. But in all these cases a large volume of case law has grown up which treats the evidence of the complainant somewhat along the same lines as accomplice evidence though often for widely differing reasons and the position now reached is that the rule about corroboration has hardened into one of law”… In the case of Raghubir (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:- “In making the above observations, obviously the High Court ignored the testimony of Doctor Urmil Gupta who had found the presence of blood-stains and the mud on the shawl and who had opined that the bleeding from the edges of the vagina was slight CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 9 of 26 and that some amount of clotted blood was also present. The prosecutrix was a girl of tender age and on account of the rape committed on her, there was bleeding from her vagina but to expect that the shawl should have got "drenched with blood" as if the large blood arteries had been cut, is letting the imagination run wild and ignoring the circumstances of the case. The absence of spermatoza on the vaginal slide, which was also pressed into aid by the High Court to acquit the respondent, was not based on proper scrutiny of the evidence. The prosecution case itself was that on being surprised while the respondent was in the act of committing sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix, he ran away carrying his underwear. The absence of spermatoza under the circumstances could not be said to be a circumstance in favour of the respondent at all. The judgment of the High Court, in our opinion, is based more on surmises and conjectures than on proper appreciation of evidence. It exposes the insensitivity of the learned Judge to the serious crime committed against human dignity. We are not impressed by the manner in which the High Court dealt with the case. Courts must be wary, circumspect and slow to interfere with reasonable and proper findings based on appreciation of evidence as recorded by the lower courts, before upsetting the same and acquitting an CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 10 of 26 accused involved in the commission of heinous offence of rape of hapless girl child. Dr. Ghatate, learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted, by reference to Rahim Beg & Anr. v. State of U.P., [1972] 3 SCC 759, that the absence of injuries on the penis of the respondent should be treated as sufficient to the negative prosecution case. We are afraid we cannot agree. Inferences have to be drawn in every case from the given set of facts and circumstances. There is no inflexible axiom of law which lays down that the absence of injuries on the male organ of the accused would always be fatal to the prosecution case and would discredit the evidence of the prosecutrix, otherwise found to be reliable. The presence of injuries on the male organ may lend support to the prosecution case, but their absence is not always fatal. Rahim Beg’s case (supra) was based on its peculiar facts and the observations mate therein were in a totally different context and cannot advance the case of the respondent. The observations in Rahim Beg’s case (supra) cannot be mechanically pressed into aid in every case regardless of the specific circumstances of the crime and absence of the fact situation as existing in that case. Every case has to be approached with realistic diversity based on peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. Doctor Sharma who had examined the CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 11 of 26 respondent had found him to be capable of sexual intercourse and according to his opinion the absence of injury on his male organ was not suggestive of the fact that he had not indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutes then of tender years of age. His evidence was not at all challenged on this aspect by the defence. Thus, considered on the whole. we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court is based on conjectural findings and cannot be sustained. The same deserves to be set aside and is hereby setaside. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge and the findings recorded by him on appreciation of evidence have appealed to us and we find no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge.” In the case of Wahid Khan vs State Of M.P: AIR 2010 SC 1, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “21. It is also a matter of common law that in Indian society any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false, she would be looked by the society with contempt throughout her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 12 of 26 incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity. She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society. It would indeed be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is, of course, not as forward looking as the western countries are. 22. Thus, in a case of rape, testimony of a prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness. It is really not necessary to insist for corroboration if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be credible.” In the case of Phool Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2022) 2 SCC 74, the Supreme Court has held as follows :- “10. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34, it is observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. In paragraphs 6 and 7, it is observed and held as under: “6. We are conscious the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying that CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 13 of 26 or the statement of throw out an otherwise contradictions in an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by insignificant minor discrepancies the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384] (SCC p. 403, para 21).] to her 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or CRLREV No. 206 of 2006 Page 14 of 26 not, unless should even discrepancies in the statement of the the prosecutrix discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam [Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635).” reliable. found be to