JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-appellant Chand Singh has been convicted u/s 376/511, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer 2 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. P.W. 5 Smt. Vidhya is the wife of P.W. 2 Chanan Ram and both are Kumhar by caste. The case of the prosecution is that on April 23, 1974 at about 10 or 10.30 a.m., Smt. Vidhya was going with food for her husband Chanan Ram, who was working on the field of one Prem Singh. When she was in the field of Trilok Singh, it is alleged that the accused all of a sudden came there and caught hold of Smt. Vidhya and felled her on the ground and subjected her to sexual intercourse. Smt. Vidhya is alleged to have raised an alarm and on hearing it, her husband Chanan Ram PW. 2, Rajarailal PW. 3 and Birbal PW. 4 were attracted. It is alleged that the accused ran away. The report of the incident was lodged in police station Sadar Sriganganagar and a case was registered. Smt. Vidhya was sent for medical examination. On examining her, the doctor did not find any marks of violence on her body or on her private parts and was unable to give any opinion. 3. The accused was tried u/s 376 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded u/s 313, Cr. P.C. and he stated that there is a single house of sikh i.e. his in the village and all other houses are of Kumhars. There was some dispute with regard to the flow of water and, therefore, a false case has been lodged against him. The accused has examined D.W. 1 Jangir Singh in defence. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar though did not believe the prosecution story for an offence of rape but convicted the accused u/s 376/511, I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. The main argument of the learned advocate for the accused-appellant is that once the learned Additional Sessions Judge had disbelieved the main case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 376, I.P.C. he should not have convicted the accused for having attempted to commit rape u/s. 376/511 I.P.C. 6. 5. The main argument of the learned advocate for the accused-appellant is that once the learned Additional Sessions Judge had disbelieved the main case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused of the charge u/s 376, I.P.C. he should not have convicted the accused for having attempted to commit rape u/s. 376/511 I.P.C. 6. It appears that the case rests on the evidence of the interested witnesses. All the witnesses are Kumhar by caste. It is admitted by Chanan Ram P.W. 2, the husband of Smt. Vidhya P.W. 5, that Birbal and Hajarilal are his brothers. He has also stated that they are his maternal uncle. At any date they appear to be close to Chanan Ram. The prosecution has come with a case that the accused took away Smt. Vidhya P.W. 5 by force, felled her on the ground and she was ravished. It has also been stated by Smt. Vidhya that she put resistance and also gave kicks to the accused while the accused was subjecting her to sexual intercourse. She has also stated that her plastic bangles were broken. But Dr. Ramlal Goyal P.W. 7 on examining her did not find any injury on her person, no injury was found on her buttock or back. Having disbelieved the non-prosecution case, in the facts and circumstances of this case it was not open for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to have convicted the accused for a lesser offence, namely, an offence u/s. 376 read with 511 I.P.C. In Devilal v. The State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1971 SC 1444 ) , in part 13, it has been observed that if bedrock of the prosecution case could not be proved as a fact, the whole prosecution case would fall like a pack of cards. According to the witnesses, all the three of them had reached on hearing the alarm of Smt. Vidhya P.W. 5. If it would have been correct then all of them must state almost the same about what they actually saw. Chanan Ram P.W. 2 stated that he saw that his wife was lying in the field of Trilok Singh and wheat crop was standing. The accused was still committing sexual intercourse with her. When he was at a distance of 10 to 15 paundas, the accused ran away. Chanan Ram P.W. 2 stated that he saw that his wife was lying in the field of Trilok Singh and wheat crop was standing. The accused was still committing sexual intercourse with her. When he was at a distance of 10 to 15 paundas, the accused ran away. Hajari PW 3 has also made a statement that when he was at a distance of 1 kilometer, he saw one man in the standing wheat crop. No sooner the man stood, he identified him to be Chand Singh accused. He does not state that he saw the accused still committing the act of sexual intercourse with Smt. Vidhya. Birbal Ram PW 4 the remaining witness, states that when he was at a distance of 1 Bigha, then the accused got up and ran away and he was identified as Chand Singh. Therefore, the statements of the witnesses as to how the incident took place and that whether Smt. Vidhaya was lying on the ground or the accused was ravishing her or was bending on her, cannot be relied on. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 376/51 I.P.C. is set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is on bail and need not surrender to the bail bonds, which shall stand discharged.Appeal Allowed. *******