JUDGMENT 1. - Appellant Idan Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1 Jodhpur, dated October 19, 1976, for his conviction under section 376, I. P. C. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution was this. In the evening of 2-6-1975, Mst. Fancy wife of the appellant came to the house of Sushma. At that time, her parents were away from the house, Sushma accompanied Fancy to her house where she was asked to put the bedding in a room, Sushma entered the room, where the appellant committed rape with her and further threatened her that if she would disclose the incident to any body, then her father would be killed. Sushma thereafter, went towards her house but did not disclose the incident to any one. About 41/2 months after the incident, Sushma was examined by a doctor, who found her pregnant. Sushma was then given beating by her mother and thereafter she disclosed the incident. Raj Kumar father of Sushma lodged the first information report of the offence. A case under section 376, I. P. C. was registered and after usual investigation, challan was presented against the appellant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. It was argued that the evidence of P. W. 5 Sushma was not reliable. She did not disclose the incident to any body for 4 months. The medical evidence is in contradiction with the story of rape and so was also the fact of her pregnancy. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor tried to support the Judgment of the trial judge. In my opinion, the testimony of P.W. 5 Sushma is not reliable and in any case, it cannot be believed in the absence of some corroboration. Sushma stated that Fancy took her to her house and asked her to put a bedding in the room. When she entered the room, appellant Idansingh assaulted her. He made her naked. The wife of Idansingh closed the door of the room. He thereafter committed the offence of rape on her. Her underwear was smeared with blood. She was threatened that if she would disclose the incident to any body she would be killed. When she entered the room, appellant Idansingh assaulted her. He made her naked. The wife of Idansingh closed the door of the room. He thereafter committed the offence of rape on her. Her underwear was smeared with blood. She was threatened that if she would disclose the incident to any body she would be killed. P. W. 4 Surendra Kumari, mother of prosecutrix stated that when the stomach of Sushma got pain, she took her to Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur. The Doctor told her that she was pregnant for last 4-5 months. She brought her daughter to the house and thrashed her. Sushma, then told that the appellant had raped her. It may be stated that Sushma was not mere child. She was about 16 years of age and, therefore, there was no reason for her to be overawed by the threats of the appellant or his wife. Her natural conduct would have been to report the incident to her mother, as soon as she returned. This was a vital infirmity in her statement. That apart the witness stated that as a result of rape, she began to bleed. This does not appear to be true. P. W. 6 Dr. R. K. Gehlot examined her and his opinion was that Sushma was used to sexual intercourse, and no opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse, the vaginal canal was two finger loose, hymen showed old tears. Thus, according to the medical testimony, the witness was habituated to sexual intercourse. In that case, she would not bleed as a result of rape by the appellant. The possibility cannot be ruled out that when the fact of her pregnancy was discovered, she implicated the appellant falsely. The statement of P. W. 4 Surendra Kumari cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of P. W. Sushma, because she was told of the incident 4-5 months after the event, P. W. 5 Sushma was habituated to sexual intercourse and, therefore, the story of bleeding during her rape is, obviously false. There are no other facts and circumstances to corroborate the testimony of Sushma, P.W. 5 which is rather improbable. Ordinarily, no wife would abate her husband in the offence of rape. There are no other facts and circumstances to corroborate the testimony of Sushma, P.W. 5 which is rather improbable. Ordinarily, no wife would abate her husband in the offence of rape. It is well settled that in cases of rape, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be corroborated though the nature of the corroboration may vary in the facts and circumstances of the each case. I am. therefore, of the opinion that P, W. 5 Sushma is not reliable witness and no conviction can be based upon her testimony. The prosecution could not bring home the guilt against the appellant. 5. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur and acquit appellant Idansingh of the offence under section 376, I. P. C. The appellant is on bail and need not surrender to his bail-bonds, which are hereby discharged.Appeal accepted. *******