Short Note : Brief facts were that at about mid-day on 1-11-1973, the prosecutrix Kusum Bai (P.W.7) aged about 20 years was sleeping inside her house at village Khairaman. It is alleged that the appellant entered into the house through the unchained door. Having entered into, against her will he forcibly committed rape on the prosecutrix. Gendalal (P.W.2), dewar (brother-in-law) of the prosecutrix, happened to come there at the time of the rape; but he was threatened and so he went away. Rambharose (P.W.3), the husband of the prosecutrix had gone to Ashoknagar in the morning. He returned in the evening when she disclosed the incident to him. 2. First information report (Ex.P-5) was lodged by the prosecutrix the next day at 2 P.M. in Ashoknagar Thana. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Saroj Sule (P.W.1) the same day. The doctor did not find any mark of injury on the private part or any part of the body of the prosecutrix. According to the doctor (P.W.1), as per her report (Ex.P-1), no definite opinion about rape could be given. Held : The prosecutrix Kusum Bai (P.W.7) in her deposition and so also in the first-information report, has specifically mentioned that when the appellant entered into her house to commit rape, she had raised cries. It would appear from the evidence and also the sketch-map which is on record, that there are houses close to her's. Rambharose (P.W.3) has also stated that Chironjilal's house is close to his house. In these circumstances, in the ordinary course of things, the neighbour would have heard the cries and had come down to help. However, nothing of the sort seems to have happened. 3. Gendalal (P.W.2) has claimed to have seen the appellant and the prosecutrix in compromising position. He claims to have run away from there saying that the appellant threatened him. In the examination-in-chief be says that he went to the house of his Dada and told him (Dada) that the appellant was raping Kusum. Had it been so, there is no reason why the Dada would not have run down to the place. Secondly, had Gendalal (P.W.2) seen them in the compromising position, he would have raised cries and atleast would have told the close by neighbour; but nothing of the sort is said to have done. 4. Had it been so, there is no reason why the Dada would not have run down to the place. Secondly, had Gendalal (P.W.2) seen them in the compromising position, he would have raised cries and atleast would have told the close by neighbour; but nothing of the sort is said to have done. 4. Adverting to the statement of the prosecutrix, her averment is that the appellant fell her down on the ground, gagged her mouth, her bangles were broken and complete sexual intercourse was committed by the appellant, spoiling her petticoat by semen. She has also stated that the appellant bit her on the cheeks and her wrists were injured when the bangles were broken. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Sule (P.W.1) soon after the lodging of the first-information report. She did not find any mark of injury whatsoever either on her private part or on any part of the body. It is pertinent to note that the prosecutrix in her statement has stated that she actually pointed out to the doctor the in jury caused by the appellant on her cheek's and her wrists. (See paras 9 and 13 of her deposition). As already stated, the doctor did not find any injury. This material contradiction between the oral and medical evidence goes to show that the prosecutrix is telling lies. 5. The statement of the prosecutrix about semen caused by the appellant is negatived by Dr. (Mrs.) Sule (P.W.1). So also, the story of her petticoat being spoiled by the semen of the appellant, was not supported by the Chemical Examiner. Thus, the prosecutrix does not find corroboration from the independent evidence on material particulars. On the other hand, she has been contradicted. 6. Rambharose (P.W.3) is the servant of Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.4). Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.4) has stated that he had sent Rambharose to sell wheat at Ashoknagar in morning and he returned in the evening. The witness further states that Rambharose (P.W.3) did not come on his work in the morning and, therefore, he (P.W.4) went to his house and to him Rambharose said that he (Rambharose) was going to Ashoknagar. The witness clearly states that Rambharose (P.W.3) did not say anything else, meaning thereby that he (P.W.3) did not say anything about the alleged rape. The witness clearly states that Rambharose (P.W.3) did not say anything else, meaning thereby that he (P.W.3) did not say anything about the alleged rape. Since Bhanupratap Singh (P.W.4) was his master, in ordinary course, Rambharose was bound to tell him about the rape either that very evening or atleast in the morning when his master came down to him to enquire as to why he had not come on duty. 7. Thus, the prosecution evidence suffers from a number of material inconsistencies. As already stated, the testimony of the prosecutrix does not find corroboration from any independent evidence. The conduct of Rambharose (P.W.3) in not apprising his own master (P.W.4) about the incident is suggestive of the fact that no such incident took place. Appeal allowed.