show that there was electrical light near the hut of P.W.2-S or near the spot. There is no evidence to show that Meharya and Leharya were residing in the forest near the spot. It is not acceptable that P.W.2-S could not have raised shouts for a considerable time right from the time of holding her hand and dragging her upto a distance of half kilometer and then subjecting her to rape and she would only shout after the rape is over. Her evidence shows that the incident began at 8.00 p.m. and she returned at pre-dawn. Though she is illiterate Adiwasi lady, her evidence showing such a huge time required for her return cannot be accepted when her small kids were in the house unattended. As stated earlier, Meharya who was examined turned hostile, while Leharya was not examined. There were more witnesses, but the prosecution has not examined any of them. It is one thing that the witnesses are not available, as no witnesses are generally available at the time of offence of rape, but in the present case, at the time of offence, the witnesses were available and one of them is not supporting, whereas the others are not examined. Surprisingly, P.W.5 – Shevantabai who is wife of brother-in-law of the prosecutrix has also not supported her. According to prosecution, she had shown the spot to the Police. Obviously, P.W.2-S must have narrated the incident to her but she has also turned hostile. When all these facts are considered in totality, those raise a serious doubt about the evidence of P.W.2-S notwithstanding the consistency in her evidence with the F.I.R. and absence of any effective cross-examination. In such case, there is some corroboration required but there is no corroboration of whatsoever nature. There is no corroboration of medical evidence or
