SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOOversusSTATE OF ORISSA

A                        SUDHANSUSEKHARSAHOO
                                          v.
                               STATE OF ORIS SA

                              DECEMBER 18, 2002

B           [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]


          Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376 and 342-Rape and wrongful
    confinement-Past conduct of prosecutrix doubtful-Delay in filing FJR-
C   Prosecution case not corroborated by medical evidence-Conviction by
    Courts below-On appeal, held-Though such delay in lodging FIR is not
    serious and past conduct of prosecutrix is irrelevent, but in the facts of the
    case these/actors cast a serious doubt on prosecution case-Accused entitled
    to benefit of doubt and hence acquilled

D         Criminal trial-Rape cases-Sole evidence of prosecutrix-Reliability
    on-Held, conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix,
    provided the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court.

         . Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences u/s 376 and 324 IPC.
    Prosecution case was that pn1secutrix was known to the accused, who was
E   her superior officer. She was called by the accused through PW2. She went
    along with PW2 to a place where she met the accused. From there the accused
    took her forcibly to his house at night, 120 km away from the house of
    prosecutrix and there he raped her. In the morning she was ~aken to the house
    of PW4 to whom she narrated the whole incident and on her advice ga,·e a
F   statement in writing. She claimed to have sustained injuries during the course
    of commission of offence but the same was not corroborated by medical
    evidence. The element of forcible taking away of the prosecutrix by the accused
    was lacking in her complaint. She claimed that the clothes which she was
    wearing at the time of commission of offence had seminal stains, which was
    not corroborated. Though she claimed to be virgin but medical evidence
G   supported by her physical features revealed that she was habituated to sex.
    However, trial Court convicted the accused, and the conviction was upheld by
    High Court.

          In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that prosecution story was
    highly improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case; and that evidence
H                                        536
                    SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO v. ST ATE                            537
 of prosecutrix was not supported by medical evidence.                                 A
       Allowing the appeal, the Court

         HELD:. I.I. On consideration of the broad probabilities of the case, it is
  felt that various factors cast a serious doubt about the genuineness of the
  case of the prosecutrix that she had been forcibly ravished by the appellant.        B
  The appellant is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt Conviction of the
  appellant under Sections 376 and 342 lPC is set aside. Though the delay as
  such is not serious, but while considering broad probabilities of the case, the
  delay in giving the informali!'n to the police, in the instan.t case, also assumes
  some importance. Though the past conduct of the prosecutrix is an irrelevant
  matter, in the instant case, prosecutrix asserted that she was a virgin till the     C
  alleged incident, but the medical evidence supported by her physical features
  revealed that she was habituated to sex. All these factors cast a serious doubt
  on the prosecution case. Though there is no apparent motive for the
  prosecutrix to falsely implicate the appellant, it may be that she must have
  changed her mind when she came to know that others must have come to know            D
· of her conduct. So there are many loose ends in the prosecution case.
                                                      (547-A; 546-F, G; H; 547-AI

        1.2. The element of forcible taking away of the prosecutrix by the
 appellant is lacking in the complaint According to her appellant forcibly had
 sexual intercourse with her tho.ugh she resisted this physical onslaught and          E
 sustained injuries. According to her, both nail marks and biting marks were
 there on her body. In the medical certificate that was produced pursuant to
 the medical examination there was no mention of nail marks or any other
 signs of violence on her body. Thus, the corroborative evidence is lacking in
 this case. According to her, her elothes had seminal stains. S~e produced             F
 these clothes before the police, but they did not contain any stain either of
 blood or semen. Had there been any stains of semen or blood on the clothes
 allegedly worn by her at the time of commission of offence, it would have gone
 a long way to prove the case of the prosecution, especially prosecutrix being
 an unmarried woman.1541-C, E, Fl
                                                                                       G
         1.3. There is no valid explanation offered by the prosecutrix to travel
  all the way from her place of residence. She being an. educated woman would
  have naturally foreseen the impropriety of travelling along with other males
  in a jeep for such a long distance during night. Her conduct appears to be
  unusua·I and there is no rational explanation as to what urgent official work
· could have been there to undertake this nocturnal journey to meet her superior H
    538                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   oflicer. (541-G, H; 542-AI

          2.1. It is true that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case is to be
    given due weight. Sexual violence is a dehumanizing act and ifis an unlawful
    encroachment into the right to privacy and sanctity of woman. The courts also
    should be strict and vigilant to protect the society from such evils. It is in the
B   interest of the society that serious crimes like rape should be effectively
    investigated. It is equally important that there must be fairness to all sides.
    In a criminal case, court has to consider the triangulation of interests. It
    involves taking into account the position of the accused, the victim and his or
    her family and the public. The purpose of criminal law is to permit everyone
C   to go about their daily lives without f~ar of harm to person or property.
                                                                           (542-D, EJ

          2.2. In rape cases conviction can be solely based on the evidence of the
    victim, provided such evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the court.
    The victim is not treated as accomplice, but could only be characterised as
D   injured witness. It is also reasonable to assume that no woman would falsely
    implicate a person in sexual offence as the honour and prestige of that woman
    also would be at stake. However, the evidence of the prosecution shall be cogent
    and convincing and if there is any supporting material likely to be available,
    then the rule of prudence requires that evidence of the victim may be supported
    by such corroborative material. (546-C, DI
E
          State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) I
    sec 550; State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj, (2000( I SCC 247 and State of Rajasthan
    v. N.K., (2000( 5 sec 30, relied on.

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 646
F   of 1994.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.1993 of the Orissa High
    Court in Crl. A. No. 16 of 1989.

          E. X. Joseph, Abhay N. Dass and M.M. Kashyap, for the Appellants.
G
          Jana Kalyan Das, for the Respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment
H   of the High Court ofOrissa, dated 27th July, .1993. The appellant was found
     SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.]                    539
guilty of offences punishable under sections 376 IPC and 342 IPC by the          A
Sessions Court, Kalahandi, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
seven years for the offence under section 376 IPC and for three months for
the offence under section 342 iPC. The conviction and sentence of the
appellant was confirmed by the High Court.

       During the relevant time, the appellant was a District Malaria Officer.   B
The complainant, (hereinafter referred to as Ms. X) was a lady Supervisor
working in the Integrated Child Development Project. She was a post-graduate
and was about 29 years of age during the relevant time. She was staying in
a rented house owned by the local post master. The case of the prosecution
was that on 1.3.1987, PW-2, a female Anganwadi worker, along with her female     C
helper came to Ms. X at 6. P.M. in a jeep and told her that she was required
by District Social Welfare Officer. Ms. X accompanied them in the jeep which
was being driven by a driver and there was also a Malaria Inspector in the
jeep. PW-2 told Ms. X that she had come pursuant to the direction given by
the appellant and that she had been told to inform Ms. X that D.S. W.O.          D
required her presence. At about 7 P.M., all of them left in the jeep and ,when
they reached a small town, which was about 13 kms. away from the residence
of Ms. X, the appellant was waiting there. The further case of the prosecution
is that when the jeep reached that place, PW-2, (the female Anganwadi
worker) and her helper alighted from the jeep and Ms. X though wanted to
alight, but she was prevented from doing so and the appellant got into the       E
driver's seat of the jeep and drove away the vehicle speedily. The jeep driven
by the appellant along with Ms. X , the Malaria Inspector iind the driver
reached the house of the appellant at about 11.30 P.M. The house of the
appellant was about 120 kms. away from the place ofresidence of Ms. X. Ms.
X was told that D.S.W.O. was sitting inside the house and the appellant          F
invited Ms. X to his house. The bag of Ms. X was carried inside the house
of the appellant by a peon. The case of the prosecution is that as soon as
Ms. X entered the house of the appellant, the appellant closed the door.
Though Ms. X wanted to leave the place, she was not allowed to go. She was
offered dinner, but she ·declined to have it. Thereafter, according to the
prosecution, the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with Ms. X and she    G
fell unconscious. When she regained her senses, she found her clothes in
disorder and discovered that she had been ravished by the appellant. At
about 7.30 A.M. on 2.3.1987, PW-3, the driver along with one Junior Engineer
came to the house of the appellant and made enquiries about Ms. X. The
Junior Engineer told that he came to know that Ms. X was ill and had come        H
    540                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A for treatment and that she was in the house of the appellant. PW-3 brought
    an autorickshaw and in that autorickshaw Ms. X proceeded to the bus stand
    and travelled in a bus and reached the house of PW-4, a project officer. PW-
    4 found Ms. X in a disturbed mood and in spite of repeated questions, Ms.
    X did not tell as to what had happened to her. In the evening, PW-4 came
B   back from her office and made further enquiries when she found Ms. X crying
    and not taking any food. On the next morning, Ms. X told everything about
    the incident that had taken place in the house of the appellant and narrated
    how she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. PW-4 advised her to
    give a statement in writing. On 4.3. 1987, PW-4, along with Ms. X, went to the
    police station and handed over the-written statement. As per the direction of
C   the Investigating Officer, Ms. X was sent for medical examination. On the next
    day, she handed over the clothes worn by her at the time of commission of
    offence by the appellant.

          The Investigating Officer got the statements of the witnesses recorded
D under Section I64 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court after considering the evidence
  came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the offence of
  wrongful confinement and rape. In the Sessipns Court, the appellant admitted
  that Ms. X was brought to his house in a jeep. According to the appellant,
  he was told that a sick lady required treatment urgently. The Malaria Inspector
  and the driver were present in the jeep and he took the sick lady in the jeep
E and wheit the jeep reached his place of residence at about 11.30 P.M., he
  asked the Malaria Inspector to take the sick lady to the hospital, but she
  requested that she may be given shelter in his house. As it was difficult to
  find an alternative place, he allowed the lady to stay in his house and asked ·
  the watchman to give her food. The sick lady was found vomiting. The
F watchman gave her a separate room and the appellant slept in his own room.
  The appellant completely denied the offence of rape and wrongful confinement.

          The Sessions Court after elaborate consideration of the matter came to
    the conclusion that Ms. X had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant
    who was a superior officer and that she being the prosecutrix in a rape case,
G   her evidence has to be given due weight. The High Court also agreed with
    the conclusion reached by the Sessions Court.

          The learned counsel who appeared for the appellant drew our attention
    to the various circumstances which made the prosecution story highly
H   improbable. It was argued that Ms. X travelled nearly 120 kms. during night
      SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO v. STATE (BALAKRISHNAN, J.]                       541
and reached the appellant's house, but she had not raised any protest against         A
the conduct of the appellant till she filed her written statement before the
police. It was also pointed out that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not
supported by any medical evidence and there are so many other circumstances
which would belie the prosecution case.

       Ms. X was staying near the place of her work in a rented house. When           B
the. female Anganwadi worker along with her helper came to her and told that
she was required by her superior officer, she did not ask anything as to why
her presence was required during night. She readily followed them and went
in a jeep to the place which was about 13 kms. away. There, she met the
appellant and according to Ms. X, she was prevented from alighting from the           C
jeep and the appellant drove away the vehicle hastily in order to prevent Ms.
X from getting down from the vehicle. But she admitted during cross-
examination that she had not stated these facts in the written complaint made
by her. Therefore, the element of forcible taking away of Ms. X by the
appellant is lacking in the complaint. According to Ms. X, the appellant
forcibly had sexual intercourse with her though she resisted this physical            D
onslaught and sustained injuries. According to her, both nail marks and biting
marks were there on her body. Ms. X was examined by a doctor on 4.3.1987,
but she was not satisfied with this examination and she was again taken to
another doctor on I 0.3.1987 for medical examination. The doctor, who examined
her on 4.3.1987 was not examined and the medical certificate also was not             E
produced as an item of evidence. In the medical certificate that was produced
pursuant to the medical examination done on 10.3.1987, there was no mention
of nail marks or any other signs of violence on her body. Thus, the
                                        \
corroborative evidence is lacking in this case. It is significant to note that
according to Ms. X, her clothes had seminal stains. She produced these
clothes before the police, but these clothes did not contain any stain either         F
of blood or semen. Had there been any stains of semen or blood on the
clothes allegedly worn by her at the time of commission of offence, it would
have gone a long way to prove the case of the prosecution, especially Ms.
X being an unmarried woman.

       That apart, there is no valid explanation offered by Ms. X to travel all       G
the way from her place of residence. Ms. X being an educated woman would
have naturally foreseen the impropriety of travelling along with other males
in a jeep for such a long distance during night. It is true, people act differently
to same situations. There are persons who are unduly timorous and imagine
every path beset with lions and there are others of more of robust temperament        H
    542                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A who fail to foresee or non-challantly disregard even the most obvious dangers.
    Ms. X, an unmarried woman travelled in a jeep for long distance in night and
    her conduct appears to be unusual and there is no rational explanation as to
    what urgent official wofk could have been there- to undertake this nocturnal
    journey to meet her superior officer.

B          It is also pertinent to note that the appellant and the M,laria Officer
    were known to Ms. X. Two days prior to 2.3 ..1987, i.e. 28.2.1987, there was
    a circle meeting where Ms. X was required in her capacity as lady supervisor.
    The place of that meeting was 35 kms. away from her residence. Ms. X
    admitted in her evidence that on the same day the appellant came to her
C   house and enquired why she had not attended the circle meeting and the
    appellant offered help for her treatment. She also deposed that the appellant
    noted his address in her diary. This shows the previous acquaintance of Ms.
    X with the appellant. It is also significant to note that on the next day at about
    7.30 A.M., the Junior Engineer and one driver came and enquired about Ms.
    X. How these two persons came to know of the presence of Ms. X in the
D   house of the appellant, also is not known.

           It is true that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case is to. be
    given due weight. The sexual violence is a dehumanising act and it is an
    unlawful encroachment into the right to privacy and sanctity of woman. The
    courts also should be strict and vigilant to protect the society from such evils.
E   It is in the interest of the society that serious crimes like rape should be
    effectively investigated. It is equally important that there must be fairness to
    all sides. In a criminal case, the court has to consider the triangulation of
    interests. It involves iaking into account the position of the accused, the
    victim and his or her family and the public. The purpose of criminal law is to
F   permit everyone to go about their daily lives without fear of harm to person
    or property.

          The counsel for the respondent State contended that the evidence of
    the prosecutrix, which is accepted by two courts, is sufficient to uphold the
    conviction of the appellant for the offence of rape and it was argued that in
G   rape cases, the sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to enter a conviction.

          It is true that the sole testimony of the victim of a sexual offence can
    be a basis for conviction provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance.
    This Court had occasion, in many cases, to consider the nature of evidence
    required when the conviction mainly based on the testimony of the victim of
H   the sexual offence.
      SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAH.00 v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.]                   543
      In Ba/want Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1987) 2 SCC 27, the           A
victim was a 19 years old student and the allegation was that when she was
on her way to the college, three accused persons forcibly took her away in
a car to the canal bank where she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the
accused. She fell unconscious and later she was found lying in a state of
unconsciousness under a Banyan tree by her father. There was no eye
witness. On medical examination, her hymen was found tom and there were            B
reddish abrasions on her breast. The police investigated the case and the
case was reported to be cancelled. The victim filed a private comp taint and
the Magistrate committed the accused persons for trial to the court of sessions.
The Sessions Judge convicted the accused persons and this Court confirmed
the conviction. This Court held that both the learned Additional Sessions          C
Judge and the High Court have believed the evidence of the prosecutrix and
her father and in their opinion there is no reason why their evidence should
not be believed anc the conviction was thus solely based on the evidence
of the prosecutrix.

        In Rafiq v. State of U.P., [1980) 4 SCC 262, a middle-aged bal sewika      D
in a village welfare organisation w~s raped by the appellant around 2.30 a.m.
when she was sleeping in a girls' school. On the next day, she reported the
matter to the mukhya sewika of the village. The counsel for the accused
contended that there was absence of corroboration of the testimony of the
prosecutrix and that there was absence of injuries on the person of the woman      E
and so the conviction was unsustainable. But this plea was rejected and this
Court held:

       "The facts and circumstances often vary from case to case, the crime
       situation and the myriad psychic factors, social conditions and people's
       life-styles may fluctuate, and so, rules of prudence relevant in one        p
       fact-situation may be inept in another. We cannot accept the argument
       that regardless of the specific circumstances of a crime and criminal
       milieu, some strands of probative reasoning which appealed to a
       Bench in one reported decision must mechanically be extended to
       other cases. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the
       testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of law but a guidance of         G
       prudence under given circumstances."

       In Krishan Lal v,State of Haryana, [1980) 3 SCC 159, the victim was
sleeping with her mother and other children outside her house on a hot night
and the two accused persol'ls carried her away to a nearby godown under
                                                                                   H
    544                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   intimidation and allegedly committed rape on the young woman. In the morning,
    the mother of the victim found blood on the daughter's salwar and thereupon
    she narrated the criminal assault of the accused on the previous night. The
    counsel for the accused urged that the evidence of the prosecutrlx, without
    substantial corroboration, was inadequate to rest a. conviction under Section
B   376 IPC. This plea was rejected and it was held by this Court as under :

           "We must bear in mind human psychology and behavioural probability
           when assessing the testimonial potency of the victim's version. What
           girl would foist a rape charge on a stranger unless a remarkable set
           of facts or clearest motives were made out? The inherent bashfulness,
           the innocent naivete and the feminine tendency to conceal the outrage
c          of masculine sexual aggression are factors which are relevant to
           improbabilise the hypothesis of false implication. The injury on the
           person of the victim, especially her private parts, has corroborative
           value. To forsake these vital considerations and go by the obsolescent
           demands for substantial corroboration is to sacrifice common sense
D          in favour of an artificial concoction called 'Judicial' probability. Indeed,
           the' Court loses its credibility ifit rebels against realism. The law court
           is not an unnatural world."

           In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, [1990)
    I SCC 550, a girl eloped with a 25 years old young man. They went to Bombay
E   and got married. Thereafter they came to a place near Nagpur and checked
    in a lodge. The local Police Subclnspector came to know that the couple was
    staying in the said lodge and he took them to the pol ice station where the
    husband was beaten up and the wife was threatened. The Sub-Inspector
    registered a case against the husband alleging that he was found misbehaving
F   on a public street and put him in the lock-up. The girl was left in a hotel. It
    was alleged that the Sub-Inspector visited the girl's room and committed rape
    on her. In that case, this Court elaborately considered the question whether
    conviction can be based on the sole testimony .of the victim of the sexual
    offence and held :

G           "Is it essential that evidence of prosecutrix should be corroborated in
            mater_ial particulars before the court bases a conviction on her
            testimony? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save
            the rarest of rare the court should look for corroboration before acting
            on the evidence of the prosecutrix ..

H           A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with accomplice.
       SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO v. STATE [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 545

         She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says A .
         that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in
         material particulars. She is undoubtediy a competent witness under
         Section 118 and her evidence inust receive the same weight as is
         attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree
         of care and caution must be attached in the evaluation of her evidence B
         as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What
         is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the
         fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested
         in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the. court keeps this
         in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the
         prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the . C
         Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section I 14 which requires
         it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant
         to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may
         look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short
         of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of D
         evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix
         must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
         But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is
        entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is
        shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the ~otality of the
        circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the E
        prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the
        person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in
        accepting her evidence. We have, therefore, no doubt in our minds
        that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack
        understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof required must F
        not be higher than is expected of an injured witness."

      In State ofH.P. v. lekh Raj, [2000] I SCC 247, this Court held that "the
hypertechnicalities or figment of imagination should not be allowed to divest
the court of its responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence to arrive
at the conclusion regarding· the existence or otherwise of a particular          G
circumstance keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the· social
position of the victim and the accused, the larger interests of the society
particularly the law and order problem and degrading values of life inherent
in the prevalent system. The realities of life have to be kept in mind while
appreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth."
                                                                                 H
    546                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         In State of Rajasthan v. N.K., [2000] 5 SCC 30, this Court held :

            "It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a
            victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime.
            There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without
            corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be
B           appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of
            any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown
            to exist in view of the subject-matter being a criminal charge. However,
            if the court of facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the
            prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or
c           circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony."

          It is well settled that in rape cases the conviction can be solely based
  on the evidence of the victim, provided such evidence inspires confidence in
  the mind of the court. The victim is not treated as accomplice, but could only
  be characterised as injured witness. It is also reasonable to assume that no
D woman would falsely implicate a person in sexual offence as the h_onour and
  prestige of that woman also would be at stake_ However, the evidence of the
  prosecution shall be cogent and convincing and if there is any supporting
  material likely to be available, then the rule of prudence requires that evidence
  of the victim may be supported by such corroborative material.

E       Unfortunately, the broad probabilities of the case were not considered
  by the Sessions Court or the High Court in the instant case_ Ms_ X, though
  asserted that she had sustained scratch injuries by nails and biting, her
  medical examination did not reveal any such injuries_ It is true that in view
  of social conditions prevalent in India, there may be delay in giving the first
F information of such an offence to the police, A rape victim may think seriously
  before giving the information to the police about rape as the onslaught of a
  social stigma may haunt her for life. Though the delay as such is not serious,
  but while considering broad probabilities of the case, the delay in giving the
  information to the police, in the instant case, also assumes some importance.
  Though the past conduct of the prosecutrix is an irrelevant matter, in the
G instant case, Ms. X asserted that she was a virgin till the alleged incident,
  but the medical evidence supported by her physical features revealed that she
  was habituated to sex_ All these factors cast a serious doubt on the prosecution
  case. Though there is no apparent motive for Ms. X to falsely implicate the
  appellant, it may be that Ms. X must have changed her mind when she came
H to know that others must have come to know of her conduct So there are
     SUDHANSU SEKHAR SAHOO v. STATE (BALAKRISHNAN, J.)                      547
so many loose ends in the prosecution case. On a consideration of the broad         A
probabilities of the case, we feel that various factors cast a serious doubt
about the genuineness of the case of Ms. X that she had been forcibly
ravishe<t by the appellant. The appellant is certainly entitied to the benefit of
doubt. Therefore, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under sections
376 and 3.f2 IPC and allow his appeal. The appellant was granted bail by this       B
Court. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant are cancelled.

KK.T.                                                          Appeal allowed.