JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Dhan Singh resident of village Jalwara Police Station Nahargarh, District Kota was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, for the offence of rape and robbery punishable under sections 376 and 392 IPC. By this judgment dated April 16, 1977, the learned Judge convicted the appellants on both the counts. He passed a separate order dated April 18, 1977, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for five year's and a fine of Rs. 2:0 - or in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 376 IPC. He further sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 250 or in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 392 IPC. Both the substantives sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The story as contained in the FIR lodged by Prabhulal father of the prosecutrix, namely Manni rans like this. Prabhulal was working in bis field on November 9, 1972, Manni carried tiffin for him that morning at about 10 or 11 a.m. It is alleged that the appellant way laid her and raped her on the point of knife. He is also alleged to have robbed her of her silver ornaments, viz., Tagadi and Kadiya. Prabhulal mentioned in the FIR, that the prosecutrix came to him shortly after the occurrence in the company of Harlal and Sheopal and narrated the occurrence to him. He complained that the appellant is a sadist who according to him had already defiled a number of young girls in the village. He requested the police to bring the appellant to book. 3. The FIR, was lodged at police station Nahargarh on November 10. 1975 at 9 p.m. i.e. neariy 22 hours after the occurrence. 4. During the trial the prosecution examined among others Dr. Shailendra Nath, Prabhu Lal, Manni, Panchuram, Harlal and Ramkishan in support of its case.The appellant denied the allegation made against him and examined one witness in defence DW 1 Babu.Sheopal, who mentioned as one of the eye-witness in the FIR has not been produced during the trial. Instead one Ram Kishan was produced as one of the eyewitnesses. 5. After going through the evidence of these witnesses, I am of opinion that the case against the accused appellant cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Instead one Ram Kishan was produced as one of the eyewitnesses. 5. After going through the evidence of these witnesses, I am of opinion that the case against the accused appellant cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is of course true that Manni a child of 14 or 15 years of age was raped on November 9, 3975. This is evident from the statement of Dr. Shailendra Nath. Dr. Shailendra Nath examined the prosecutrix on November 9, 1975, found the hymen ruptured with bruise and ecchymosis present on the left lateral flap and libia minora. He also noticed flow of foul white discharge with blood coming out of the vagina. He recorded a categorical opinion as a result of the examination that Manni had been raped. 6. On a close study of the statements of Prabhu Lal, Panchuram, Manni, Harlal and Ramkishan, I am of opinion that it would not be safe to place reliance on them to hold that the appellant had raped Manni on November 9, 1975, have already mentioned that the F. I. R. in this case was lodged after an inordinate delay of 22 hours. It is significant to note that not withstanding the long deliberations after which this F. I. R. was lodged Prabhu Lal was not able to state in so many words that any person had witnessed the occurrence. AH that he told the police in the F. I. R. was that when Manni came to him in the field and complained about the occurrence, Harlal and Sheopal were also present there. There is no mention of the name of Ram Kishan at all in the F. I. R. Even in his deposition in the court Prabhulal has not mentioned the name of Ram Kishan as one of the witness of the occurrence or a person who had accompanied Manni, to the field immediately after the occurrence. 7. I am, therefore, not prepared to believe that Ram Kishan had witnessed the occurrence as claimed by him. It will be seen that Ram Kishan is a close relation of the complainant Prabhu Lal. He happens to be the elder brother of the husband of prosecutrix. No reliance can be placed on such a witness more so when his name does not find mention in the F. I. R. 8. Har Lal also does not inspire much confidence. It will be seen that Ram Kishan is a close relation of the complainant Prabhu Lal. He happens to be the elder brother of the husband of prosecutrix. No reliance can be placed on such a witness more so when his name does not find mention in the F. I. R. 8. Har Lal also does not inspire much confidence. He is the brother of the father of the husband of the prosecutrix. His name appears to have been introduced for the first time in the F. I. R. on November 10, 1975 as one of those who had accompanied the prosecutrix to the field of Prabhulal shortly after the occurrence. He was not mentioned in the F. I. R. as one of the eye witnesses of the occurrence. 9. PW, Manni, the prosecutrix, has of course named the appellant as the rapist in her deposition in the court. She would have us believe that Ram Kishan Jagdish and Harlal witnessed the occurrence. I am satisfied that Ram Kishan and Jagdish were not present at the time of the occurrence at all. The presence of PW Harlal there is also not free from doubt. Manni is therefore, a witness who has not hesitated to name as eye witnesses persons who were not present at the scene of occurrence. Her deposition is, therefore, not of the type of which one may place implicit reliance to record conviction against the appellant.For all these reasons, I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and instead acquit him. He shall be released forthwith if not required In any other case. *******