State of MP v. Dayal Sahu, AIR (2005) SC 3570 (India)

A married woman was raped by a guest, while the household was sleeping. He initially pretended to be her husband, but when she came to know he was not the husband, she woke up her husband and other members of the household who were outside. Her husband and the other entered the room with a lit lantern and found the accused there who made a confessional statement. The woman, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law testified on the rape. However, the court acquitted the accused for lack of the testimony of the doctor who examined the woman, which supposedly created reasonable doubt. The non-examination of the doctor and non-production of the doctor's report would not be fatal to the prosecution's case, if the statements of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses inspire confidence. In fact, a conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the corroboration of her statement.