JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by 10 accused appellants, who have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk vide his judgment dated January 14, 1975 in the following manner : Jagga :- Under Sections 376 I.P.C. to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 368 I.P.C. to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently : All the remaining accused persons appellant ; Under Section 366 I.P.C. to two years rigours imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in, brief is, that Smt. Manbhar PW 4 and her husband Ramnath P.W. 5, had gone to attend a funeral ceremony of mother of accused Bajranga in village Jhola on or about September 8, 1970 The other villagers who had gone to attend the aforesaid ceremony returned back but Manbhar and Ram Nath remained in the village for two or three days. Thereafter, Bajranga called other accused persons from village Molvipura and all the accused persons took Smt. Manbhar by force to village Molvipura. The accused persons tied Ramnath husband of Smt. Manbhar with tree. The accused persons while taking Manbhar to their village Molvipura put cloth in the mouth of Smt. Manbhar so that she may not raise hue and cry. The accused appellant Jagga, committed rape on Manbhar at many places and was forced to remain with Jagga as his wife. The accused persons also took away the silver ornaments of Smt Manbhar. Lala Chanda, Somnath Ramniwas came on hearing hue and cry raised by Ramnath and they untied Ramnath from the tree. Ramnath than lodged F.I.R. of the occurrence vide Ex. P.3 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Tonk on September 24, 1970, who forwarded it to the Police Station, Baroni and on this S.H.O. Baroni also entered a report on September 24, 1970, vide Ex. P. 4. The police after investigation filed challan against all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147, 342, 366 and 376. I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after framing charges read over the same to the accused persons, who denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case,'examined P.W. 1 Lala, P.W. 2 Ram Narain. P.W. 3 Khoob Chand. PW 4 Mst. Manbhar, PW 5 Ramnath, PW 6 Umrao Singh. I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after framing charges read over the same to the accused persons, who denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case,'examined P.W. 1 Lala, P.W. 2 Ram Narain. P.W. 3 Khoob Chand. PW 4 Mst. Manbhar, PW 5 Ramnath, PW 6 Umrao Singh. The accused persons in defence examined DW 1 Rooga, DW 2 Badri, DW 3 Jagnnath, DW 4 Panna, PW 5 Sohan, DW 6 Jagga and DW 7 Jagnnath. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence led by the parties, acquitted the accused persons for offences under Section 147 I.P.C., but convicted them under Sections 366, 368 and 376 I.P.C. in the manner indicated above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however did not record any finding as regards the offence under section 342 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants contended that there are serious infirmities in the prosecution case. The first information report was lodged after about 12 days of the occurrence for which no explanation has been given. Though for the persons namely, Lala, Chanda Somnath and Ramniwas were stated to be eye witnesses, but out of them Chanda and Somnath have not been produced. PW 1 Lala does not support the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. PW 2 Ram Narain also does not state that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence. Ram Narain in his statement only states the presence of Bajranga on the spot and does not name any other accused person. There are serious contradictions and infirmities in the statements of PW 4 Mst. Manbhar and PW 5 Ramnath, the report of the incident was lodged in the police station on the day of occurrence and according to him Sub-Inspector had come on the spot on the next day and had written certain proceedings but the same have been withheld by the prosecution. Though, it is the case of the prosecution that Mst. Manbhar was examined by a Doctor, but no medical report was produced. No independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case, nor any witness of village Molvipura has been produced to state that Mst. Manbhar was kept in unlawful confinement at the house of Jagga. The statement of Mst. Manbhar was examined by a Doctor, but no medical report was produced. No independent witness has been examined to support the prosecution case, nor any witness of village Molvipura has been produced to state that Mst. Manbhar was kept in unlawful confinement at the house of Jagga. The statement of Mst. Manbhar that Jagga used to commit sexual inter-course with her and also that used to be seen by his wife, brother and brothers wife is false on the face of it, as no such act could have been committed in the presence of these persons. The accused persons have been falsely implicated oi account of enmity as Prahlad, brother of Mst. Manbhar, has been convicted and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment in having cut the hand of Bajranga accused appellant. It is further contended that delay in lodging the F.I.R, Ex. P/4 before Additional Superintendent of Police Station Baroni on 24-9-70, when occurrence is alleged to have taken place on or about 13th September, 1970, goes un-examined and shows falsity of the prosecution case. Reliance in this regard is placed on Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 AIR (SC) 501 . It is further contended that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix Smt. Manbhar cannot be relied upon as her statement is not worthy of any credence and is full of contradictions and inherent improbabilities. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029 . 3. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution case is fully established from the statement of Mst. Manbhar and Ramnath PW 5 and there is nothing to dis-believe their statements. He has supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, and have fully gone through the record. PW. Ram Nath, in his statement, stated that Jagga, Sumerta, Salya. Jaganath, Bajranga, Jagnath Patel and the other accused persons, to whom he did not know, took away by the force and by dragging his wife Mst. Manbhar and he was tied with Neem tree. Lala, Chanda, Sheonath and Ramnath came to his rescue and untied him. His wife was recovered by the Police from the custody of the accused persons. Jaganath, Bajranga, Jagnath Patel and the other accused persons, to whom he did not know, took away by the force and by dragging his wife Mst. Manbhar and he was tied with Neem tree. Lala, Chanda, Sheonath and Ramnath came to his rescue and untied him. His wife was recovered by the Police from the custody of the accused persons. In the cross-examination, he stated that when his wife was taken at that time Ram Narain, Sheonath, Chanda and Lalo had come. He did not know whether they raised any protest or not as he had become un-conscious. He regained consciousness after about one hour. When he became conscious, he says four persons were present. Thereafter, he and the above persons went to lodge a report in the police station at the very time. The police station is at a distance of one Kos (2 miles), and the report was lodged on the same day at the same time and the entire incident was narrated to the Sub-Inspector. He further stated that when he lodged this report in the police station, then he had not mentioned the names of any of the accused persons. Then, said that he had mentioned the names of the persons who tied him. The persons who had tied him were Jagga and Samratha. He further stated that on filing a report in the police station Sub-Inspector had gone on tie spot on the next day and had written down the proceedings. Enquiry was made from the villagers, but he was unable to tell their names. His wife came back after a month and the police people had brought her to give her custody to him Ex. P/3 and Ex. P/4 were given to the Sub-Inspector, which bear his thumb impression. He might have given the report to S-P. Saheb on the next day. He knew Prahlad who was brother of Mst. Manbhar. He did not know whether Prahlad had cut the hand of Bajranga and on that account he has been convicted. It was wrong to suggest that Bajianga was named because he had got Prahlad convicted. Then said, that when he was tied with the tree none was present. Out of the four witnesses named Lala, Chanda, Sheonath and Ram Narain PW 1. It was wrong to suggest that Bajianga was named because he had got Prahlad convicted. Then said, that when he was tied with the tree none was present. Out of the four witnesses named Lala, Chanda, Sheonath and Ram Narain PW 1. Lala has stated that about four or five years back he had gone to attend Nukta ceremony of the mother of Bajranga in village Jula. He knew Ram Nath and his wife Mst. Manbhar. Ramnath met him in that Nukta. He did not see his wife at that time. He knew the accused present in the Court, but, none of them was present at that time. In the night Ramnath had told him that Bajranga had taken away his wife. Bajranga was present in the Nukta ceremony but did not see any person taking Mst. Manbhar. After this statement of PW 1 Lala, witness was declared hostile' On cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that his statements were recorded in the lower court and in that statement he might have stated that Mst. Manbhar had also come in Nukta, but due to lapse of time, he does not remember. The statement given by him in the lower court were correct. Sub-Inspector had interrogated him and whatever statement he has given today was told to the Sub-Inspector. When confronted with the statements part A to B, C to D, E to F, G to H and I to in Exhibit P/1, he stated that he did not give such statement. Thus, this witness PW 1 does not support at all the story narrated by PW 4 Ramnath and this witness is thus of no help to the prosecution. PW 2 Ram Narain has stated that he did not go in any Nukta ceremony, nor, he witnessed any incident. When he was coming from village Daultapura and was passing through village Jula after two days of the Nukta of the mother of Bajranga, then hue and cry was heard in the house of Bajranga. Ramnath was tied with a tree. He further said that he was alone at that time, when he asked Ramnath then he told that his wife has been taken away and he has been tied with tree. Ramnath had told him that Bajranga accused had tied him and also told about one son of Bajranga. Ramnath was tied with a tree. He further said that he was alone at that time, when he asked Ramnath then he told that his wife has been taken away and he has been tied with tree. Ramnath had told him that Bajranga accused had tied him and also told about one son of Bajranga. In the cross examination he told that Ramnath was not tied with tree by Bajranga before him. There was no person by the side of Ramnath at that time. Ramnath is related to him as brother in two or three degrees. Sheonath and Lala are also brothers in relation to Ramnath. From a perusal of the statement of the above witness it only appears that he had seen Raro Nath tied with a tree and Ramnath had hold him that Bajranga accused and his one son had done this. Though, Ramnath PW 5 stated that Lala, Chanda Sheomith and Ram Narain had come together and had un-tied him but according to the statement of Ramnarain nobody else was present at that time when he had come and seen Ramnath being tied with a tree. He has root even stated he un-tied Ramnath from the tree. He was not named any of the accused persons who had taken Mst. Manbhar by force. Though according to Ramnath PW 5 all the accused persons had tied him with the tree, but according to Ram Narain, Ramnath told him that Bajranga and his one son only tied him.Thus, there are serious contradictions in the statement of PW 2 and PW 5 and in any case he had reached on the spot admittedly after the accused persons had gone and he has only stated that was told to him by Ramnath. PW 3 Khoob Chand has stated that Mst. Manbhar herself had appeared in the police station. Ex. P/2 was prepared by the Sub-Inspector which contained signatures of Khoobchand A to B. He was unable to state whether the signatures of Mst. Manbhar were taken on it or not. This witness thus, states that Mst. Manbhar had appeared in the police station on her own accord. This fact is contradicted by PW 4 Mst. Manbhar when she stated that her in-laws came along with the police and then she was recovered. Thus. PW 3 is also of no help to the prosecution. PW 4 Mst. This witness thus, states that Mst. Manbhar had appeared in the police station on her own accord. This fact is contradicted by PW 4 Mst. Manbhar when she stated that her in-laws came along with the police and then she was recovered. Thus. PW 3 is also of no help to the prosecution. PW 4 Mst. Manbhar has stated that about four years back she had gone with her husband in the Nukta of the Mother of Bajranga in village Jula. Other relations were made to go by Bajranga and she and her husband were asked to stay. She had gone to meet Ram Narain. When she returned back at the house of Bajranga then in the night Salaya, Jagoo, Ranga, Jagnaih, Jagnnath Patel, Bhanwar Lal, Bajranga and Pratapa, accused present in the court, and other persons by force and without her consent took her to Molvipura. They had taken her for committing rape. Accused Ranga and Jagga tied her husband with tree with a rope. When she raised hue and cry then her husband came and was tied, cloth was put in her mouth and then she was taken on a camel. She was kept in the house of Salaya where accused Jagga committed sexual intercourse with her by force and without her consent. Then, she was kept at the house of Ranga where also accused Jagga committed sexual intercourse with her by force. She was not allowed to go any where on the threat of taking her life. Thereafter accused persons by force made her to take the Chura of Jagga. She refused to live as the wife of Jagga. Thereafter she was made to wear the clothes of Gujari and brought to Tonk for recording her statement. The accused Jagga, Salaya and Bhanwar Lal snatched her ornaments by force. At Tonk accused persons by force got her thumb impression on certain papers. She did not know what was written on the papers. She was being threatened of cutting her nose and thumb impression was put. Thereafter she was taken to Molvipura. Nobody was allowed to see her. Thereafter her in-laws came along with the police and she was recovered from there. She was also got medically examined. In the cross examination, she admitted that when she was abducted by accused persons there was nobody else except her husband. Thereafter she was taken to Molvipura. Nobody was allowed to see her. Thereafter her in-laws came along with the police and she was recovered from there. She was also got medically examined. In the cross examination, she admitted that when she was abducted by accused persons there was nobody else except her husband. She was produced before some officers at Tonk, but she did not tell about the incident to that officer on account of fear. She did not cry even out-side as the accused persons had given her threatening of beating her. She further stated that she did not know whether any case was lodged against Prahlad for cutting the hand of Bajranga accused and in which he was convicted. She further denied that she was knowing the accused persons on this account. In the end, she stated that whenever Jagga used to commit evil work (sexual intercourse) then his wife, brother and brothers wife all used to see. Her brother Prahlad was undergoing sentences. In the statement of this witness, it has come that accused Ranga and Jagga tied her husband with tree. This does not find corroboration from the statements of PW 2 Ram Narain as well as PW 5 Ramnath, who stated about different persons who tied Ram Nath with the tree, Though,she has stated that her in laws came along with police to recover her from the custody of the accused persons, but this fact is totally belied by the statements of PW 3 and PW 6 Umraosingh Investigating Officer,who have clearly admitted that Mst.Manbhai had come in the police station on her own accord. It is also not understandable that when this witness was taken to Tonk by accused persons why she did not tell the incident to the officer before whom she was produced. Her explanation in this regard that she was given a threatening of being beaten is not worthy to believe that when she was brought in the public and also produced before an officer even she could not have told this story.Her statement that the evil work (sexual inter-course) used to be done by Jagga in presence of his wife, bi other and brothers wife is also against the human course of conduct. Though, Prahald is his real brother, she even denied that any case was lodged against him for cutting the hand of Bajranga and the fact that he was convicted. No other evidence of village Molvipura has been produced by the prosecution side or from village Jula to corroborate that she was taken by force from village Jula and was kept in wrongful confinement in the house of Jagga in village Molvipura. If she would have been recovered from the accused persons, as stated by her, it would have lent a great support to the prosecution case, but this part of the prosecution case is denied by PW. 3 and PW. 6. Thus in my view, there is Dot an iota of evidence led by the prosecution except the solitary statement of Mst. Manbhar to prove that she remained in unlawful confinement by the accused persons at Molvipura. Though,as stated by this witness, she was medically examined, but neither any report of the medical examination,nor any Dr. has been produced. In these circumstances, it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of Mst. Manbhar without any corroboration from other evidence. PW 5 Ram Nath has stated that he and his wife Manbhar had gone to attend the Nukta of the mother of Bajranga. The other persons were made to go by Bajranga and he and his wife were asked to stay. Three days afterwards Bajranga. Called persons from Molvipura and he was made to sleep out side. Then Jagga, Salaya, Samaratha, Jagannath, Bajranga, Jagnnath Patel and other persons whom he did not know tied him with Neem tree and took his wife by force. Lala, Chanda, Sheonath and Ramnarain untied him and all these four persons had come as soon as he raised hue and cry when his wife was taken by accused persons. He had lodged a report in the police station then said before S.P. Saheb which was Ex.P/3 and FIR Ex.P/4. This document contained his thumb impression. Police had come on the spot and prepared aside plan Ex.P/5 which also contained his thumb impression. His wife was recovered by police people from the custody of the accused persons. In the cross examination, he admitted that when his wife was being taken at that time Ram Narain, Sheonath Chanda and Lala had come. Police had come on the spot and prepared aside plan Ex.P/5 which also contained his thumb impression. His wife was recovered by police people from the custody of the accused persons. In the cross examination, he admitted that when his wife was being taken at that time Ram Narain, Sheonath Chanda and Lala had come. He did not know whether these persons had protested or not, as he had become unconscious He had lodged a report of this incident at the police station at the same time. Persons who had tied him were Jagga and Smaratha. His wife came after month and was entrusted to him by the police people. There are serious contradictions about the persons who tied him with the tree. PW 6 Umrao Singh, on the other hand, states that Manbhar had come to the police station on her own accord and was entrusted to Lala. Under these circumstances, it is very doubtful to believe the statement of Ramnath PW 5 that Mst. Manbhar was recovered from the custody of accused persons and was entrusted to him by police people. 5. The accused persons in defence have examined DW 3 Jagnnath, DW 4 Panna, DW 5 Sohan and DW 6 Jagga, who are resident of Molvipura, have stated that according to their knowledge no woman was brought and kept in the house of Jagga as this was a small village. DW 7, who is Sarpanch of village Jula, has stated that in the last 5 or 7 years no Nukta care money of mother of Bajranga was held. I do not place much reliance on this statement of DW 7 because it is not necessary that he should have known if any Nukta of the mother of Bajranga was held or not. 6. Apart from the evidence of the prosecution witness which I have discussed above there are some serious and broad infirmities in the prosecution case. According to PW 5 Kamnath a report of incident was lodged on the same day in the police station and the Sub-Inspector, according to him, had also gone in the village on the next day and had taken down and had recorded some written evidence which would have been the best evidence as regards the first report of the occurrence. The medical report of Mst. Manbhar has not been produced. The medical report of Mst. Manbhar has not been produced. No witness of village Molvipura have been produced to prove the fact that Mst. Manbhar was kept in unlawful confinement in the house of Jagga for a period of about one month. There is a serious contradiction in the statements of Mst. Manbhar PW 4 and PW 5 Ramnath on the one hand, according to whom Mst. Manbhar was recovered by the police from the custody of the accused persons and in the statement of PW 3 and according to whom Mst. Manbhar had come to the police station of her own accord. There are serious contradictions about the persons who had actually abducted her from village Jula and had tied Ramnath with a tree, It is difficult to find out from such evidence of the prosecution as to which of the accused persons had actually, tied Ramnath and had abducted Mst. Manbhar from village Jula. When major part of the evidence of the prosecution remains un-believable, it is difficult to believe the remaining story of the prosecution, as regards Jagga alone who according to Mst. Manbhar had committed sexual intercourse with her and had kept her in his house in village Molvipura. The story about offence of rape, as narrated by Mst. Manbhar, seems to be false on the face of it. The learned Sessions Judge has written a Judgment which does not make out any sense. He has not analysed the evidence of the prosecution in detail. He has also committed an error of law in finding corroboration to the statement of Mst. Manbhar from her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr. P.C. Thus, in my view, the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge suffers from both errors of fact as well as of law. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentences of all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 366, 368 and 376 I.P.C. are set aside and the accused appellants are acquitted of all the charge. The appellants are on bail and they need not surrender to their bail bonds.Appeal Allowed. *******