JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmad, J. - This is an appeal by one Jiwan, who has been convicted u/s 376/511, and Section 323, I.P.C, and has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under the former and to a fine of Rs. 25 under the latter section. The Appellant is a man of about 55 years of age and has got six grown up sons and two daughters. He is a Teli by caste and resides in the same village in which Mst. Ganeshi, complainant, who is also a Teli resides. On the 6th of March, 1935, Mst. Ganeshi filed a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate alleging that the Appellant attempted to commit rape on her. It was mentioned in the complaint that the crime was committed by the Appellant near a sugar-cane field where the complainant had gone to ease herself on the morning of the 6th of March. The complainant alleged that when the Appellant attempted to commit the offence she raised an alarm and then the Appellant inflicted a blow on her face with his hand which shook her teeth and she started bleeding from her mouth. At the back of the complaint the Magistrate noted that the mouth of the complainant was bleeding. 2. The Appellant denied his guilt and alleged that Ganeshi who was his relation had illicit connection with Ram Dayal Brahman, one of the prosecution witnesses, and that as on a previous occasion there was quarrel between him and Ganeshi, Ram Dayal had falsely implicated him. Ganeshi, Mst. Subrani, Ram Dayal Brahman, Ram Dayal Kayastha and one Cheda were produced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution version of the facts. 3. It appears from the statement of Ganeshi that the scene of the alleged incident is in close proximity to the abadi of the village. I find it difficult to believe that the Appellant, who is a man of advanced years, would have attempted to commit rape on the woman belonging to his own bradri, and possibly his own relation, in a place close to the abadi of the village. Ganeshi admitted in her cross-examination that Balwant was a punch of the Telis. Balwant was called as a witness for the defence and he proved the fact that Mst. Ganeshi admitted in her cross-examination that Balwant was a punch of the Telis. Balwant was called as a witness for the defence and he proved the fact that Mst. Ganeshi is a woman of loose morals and that no less than two panchayats with regard to Ganeshi were called in the village. He also stated that Ganeshi was suspected of carrying on intrigue with Ram Dayal Brahman who was one of the prosecution witnesses. Mst. Subrani also appears, from the evidence to be a Woman of loose morals. It appears that there are two parties amongst the Telis residing in the village and Subrani admitted that Ganeshi complainant and she (Subrani) belonged to one group of bradri. Neither Subrani nor Ram Dayal can, therefore, be characterised as impartial witnesses. Having regard to the improbabilities of the prosecution story, I am also* net inclined to believe the statement of Ram Dayal and Cheda. If the Appellant had behaved in the manner that he is alleged to have done by the prosecution then I would have expected to find some marks of injury apart from the alleged injury on the face, on the person of Gane'shi. No such injury was, however, found on the person of Ganeshi. Even the bangles of glass that she was wearing remained intact and not even one of them was broken. 4. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I consider it unsafe to base the conviction of Jiwan on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly I allow the appeal of Jiwan and acquit him. He need not surrender to his bail. The bail bonds are discharged.