JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - Mirro was placed on his trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Agra for an offence under S. 377, Penal Code, in that he committed unnatural offence upon a boy named Ram Dayal and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. According to the story for the prosecution Ram Dayal had gone to the shop of a man named Sakko, alias Sakoor, a blacksmith, to take the implements which he had given him for repairs. The accused caught hold of the hand of the boy and wanted to take him away forcibly. Sakoor intervened and was slapped by the accused who took away the, boy forcibly to an enclosure. This enclosure belongs to the brother-in-law of the accused, a man named Ajmeri. There be committed the offence. Sakoor ran to inform the members of the family of the boy and met them half way somewhere near Baker Park, All this took place between 4-30 and 5 P.M. Sakoor informed Girandra Singh. With him was another man, Sia Ram. He told them that Mirro had taken away the boy forcibly for unnatural offence. On the way he met Ram Chand, Ghasi and a few others. All went to the place of the occurrence and caught the accused red-handed. 3. The accused pleaded, in defence, that there was bad blood between him and the Chamars, Ram Dayal is a chamar by caste; and this prosecution is the result of that enmity. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had successfully established the case and, in disagreement with the unanimous opinion of the assessors, passed the sentence mentioned above. The accused has come to this Court in appeal. 4. Ram Dayal went into the witness bos and stated how he was taken by the accused, in spite of the intercession of Sakoor whom he slapped, how he was felled on the ground and injured his knees and how the offence was committed. He has been supported by a number of witnesses. But, on a careful examination of the entire evidence, I am not quite free from doubt in my mind that the prosecution is not the result of the strained relations between the accused and the party of Ram Dayal. 5. The accused, it is admitted, is a notorious bully. He is the brother-in-law of a still more notorious bully, Ajmeri. But, on a careful examination of the entire evidence, I am not quite free from doubt in my mind that the prosecution is not the result of the strained relations between the accused and the party of Ram Dayal. 5. The accused, it is admitted, is a notorious bully. He is the brother-in-law of a still more notorious bully, Ajmeri. That he is a terror and is hated by the people of the place seems to be quite natural. It is not surprising if he has incurred the displeasure also of the police. It seems clear too, that he is not only a desperate character but is a man of depraved morality. But beyond this the evidence does not establish anything against him. 6. The medical evidence is definitely in his favour. The boy was medically examined. It is not the case of the prosecution that the offence remained uncompleted. If so, the medical evidence could and should have been definite against him, but it is not so. The Civil Surgeon did not find any marks of injury on the anus of the boy but he qualified his statement by a further observation that he was quite grown up and, in such cases, there may be no marks of injury. It appears to me that the rider added by the Civil Surgeon is somewhat inconsistent. Be that as it may, the medical evidence does not go against the accused. It is true that there were marks of semen on the dhoti of the accused, but this is by no means a decisive factor. The medical evidence, therefore, does leave a gap in the story for the prosecution and it remains to be considered whether that gap has been filled or repaired by the other evidence which has been led by it. 7. Even assuming, as I have already said, that he is a terror and a daring bully the evidence seems to draw an exaggerated, if not an entirely false, picture of the accused. The scene is laid in one of the busy quarters of the town of Agra. The shop, where the accused is alleged to have caught hold of the boy is surrounded by several other shops. The scene is laid in one of the busy quarters of the town of Agra. The shop, where the accused is alleged to have caught hold of the boy is surrounded by several other shops. The time was 4.30 or 5 P.M. which, According to the learned Judge himself, was the hour of the day "when people go out to market." That the accused should have caught hold of the boy at such a time and such a place seems difficult to believe. That he should have dragged the boy to some distance appears to be almost incredible. Then, again, according to the boy himself, the offence did not take more than five minutes and "yet, according to Ram Dayal himself, people continued to ask the accused "for about fifteen or twenty minutes," to leave him and yet he was adamant. Not only that he received lathi blows. If the offence did not take more than five minutes, the two statements seem to be irreconcilable. Not only are the two portions of the statement of Ramdayal irreconcilable, but the evidence of Sakoor, P.W. 2, disproves the presence of the four or five men mentioned by the boy as having been present at the time of the offence. The accused had taken away the boy and it was then that Sakoor went out to inform his relations and the members of of his party. He must have taken some time to find them out and then to inform them and for them to have reached the spot. This is the class of evidence which has been led in the case and this evidence hardly carries conviction to one's mind. 8. A careful examination of the entire evidence does leave an impression on one's mind that the accused is an undesirable person who has made many enemies and the case is the outcome of that enmity. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has at one place of his judgment, remarked that the station officer, Imdad Husain, was a Musalman and it was impossible that he should have brought a false case against an innocent Musalman, The learned Assistant Sessions Judge is dead and nothing is further from my mind than to say anything in disparagement of his memory but I feel constrained to say that there was no warrant for introducing this communal tinge in the case. There was no question of any communal feeling. Sakoor, the principal prosecution witness, is a Musalman. All the assessors, who found the accused not guilty, are Hindus. They are Mahendra Singh, Narain Singh and Chhattarpal. 9. On a careful consideration of the entire case, I share the view of the assessors rather than of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. The accused shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in connection with some other case.