JUDGMENT 1. - As both the appeals arises out of the same judgment dated October 19, 1976, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, both are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused appellant Somaram under section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine, he has to further suffer four months R.I. This accused and the other two accused appellants Kalu Singh and Poonmaram have been convicted under section 392 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer three months R.I. The substantive sentences of accused Somaram under both the counts have been ordered to run concurrently. 3. In brief the case of the prosecution is this: On May 19, 1975 Smt. Kanwara PW 5 along with Amar Singh PW 7 reached Pokaran bus stand when it had become dark. They were strangers to the place and as such were in search of a place for stay during the night. It is alleged that Poonma accused appellant met them at the bus stand and he offered kanwara and Amarsingh that they could stay at his house. It is alleged that when Smt. Kanwara and Amarsingh were in a room inside the house of Poonmaram, Poonmaram and Somaram accused appellants came there and knocked the door which was opened. They enquired of Amarsingh as to whether he knew anybody in the village and Amarsingh gave out that he knew Kalusingh constable. Then Kalusingh was sent for but seeing him Amarsingh gave out that he was not that Kalusingh who was known to him. It is said that Amarsingh was beaten by all the three persons and a sum of Rs. 50/- was taken from him. Smt. Kanwara was taken by accused Somaram to his house alongwith her box of tin which was locked. Somaram asked Kanwara to give her all which she had but she gave out that she had not the key of the box and it was with Amarsingh. Somaram went to Amarsingh and brought the key and a sum of Rs. 219/- was taken away from the box. Somaram asked Kanwara to give her all which she had but she gave out that she had not the key of the box and it was with Amarsingh. Somaram went to Amarsingh and brought the key and a sum of Rs. 219/- was taken away from the box. It is further the case of the prosecution that Somaram committed sexual intercourse with Smt. Kanwara against her wish. In the next morning both Amarsingh and Kanwara left for their village by bus. They narrated the incident to Bhanwarsingh PW 6 who went to police station, Pokaran and lodged a report Ex. p. 3 there on May 23, 1975. A case was registered and investigation was sent in motion. 4. Smt. Kanwara was medically examined for estimation of her age and she was aged about 15 years as has been proved by Dr. P. Dayal, PW 10. The accused persons were tried for the aforesaid offence and their plea was of bare denial. They came out with a case that they have been falsely implicated. The accused persons examined six witnesses in defence. 5. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced each of the accused persons as aforesaid. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have been taken through the evidence on record. It is contended by the learned advocate for the appellants that it appears that the learned Judge has not tried to scrutinise the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and if they are scrutinised, it becomes doubtful that any occurrence took place as alleged by them. 7. The case rests on the testimony of kanwara PW 5 and Amarsingh PW 7. It has come in the statement of Smt. kanwara that she was not knowing any of the accused prior to the occurrence. She has clearly stated that so far as the sum of Rs. 50/- is concerned, it was not taken away by any of the accused in her presence and Amarsingh had told her that Rs. 50/- has been taken away. She had given a categorical statement, in the end of her examination, that Amarsingh gave out to her that a sum of Rs. 50/- had been taken away by the accused and that she did not witness the actual taking away of the sum by any of the accused appellants. 50/- has been taken away. She had given a categorical statement, in the end of her examination, that Amarsingh gave out to her that a sum of Rs. 50/- had been taken away by the accused and that she did not witness the actual taking away of the sum by any of the accused appellants. She also stated that she does not speak to Amarsingh out of respect. In her examination in chief, she made a statement that Amarsingh was beaten by all the three persons and Rs. 50/- had been taken away. Amarsingh PW 7 admits that as a result of the beating administered by the accused, he did not receive any apparent injury. He admits that he was not medically examined. It does not appeal to reasonable that if as many as three persons give beating to a persons, that person will not receive any injury. It was the case of the prosecution that Somaram accused had committed sexual intercourse against the will of Smt. kanwara and the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Somaram also for the offence under section 376 IPC. I will later on deal with as to whether any offence under section 376 IPC is made out or not. But sufficient it to say for the present, that Smt. kanwara, it appears does not know as to who is Poonmaram and who is Somaram amongst the two accused persons. She stated in her statement in the court that first Poonmaram committed sexual intercourse with her. She stated that she was first taken to the house of Somaram and then to the house of Poonmaram, a statement contradictory to the case set up by the prosecution. Amarsingh PW 7 who is said to have been beaten by the accused and from whom a sum of Rs. 50/- is said to have been taken away states that all the accused persons had taken a sum of Rs. 50/- from him whereas in the FIR which was lodged after having a talk to both kanwara and Amarsingh it was mentioned that it was Kalusingh who had taken a sum of Rs. 50/- from him. It has been stated by him that Somaram and Kalusingh had taken away his aunt (kaki) in his presence, a statement which was not made by Smt. Kanwara so far as accused Kalu Singh is concerned. 50/- from him. It has been stated by him that Somaram and Kalusingh had taken away his aunt (kaki) in his presence, a statement which was not made by Smt. Kanwara so far as accused Kalu Singh is concerned. Amarsingh admits that there was no money in the tin box of Smt. Kanwara. He also states that while they were going in the bus kanwara did not talk to him that a sum of Rs. 219/- had been taken away by Somaram or Poonamaram or both by opening the lock. 8. It was the case of the prosecution that on the next day of the occurrence, Bhanwarlal PW 1 had met Amarsingh PW 7. Bhanwarlal PW 1 is a constable and he states that at about 7.45 in the morning of 20th May, 1975 at Pokaran in a tea stall Amarsingh and Bhanwara had met him. The states that Amarsingh had given out that besides Rs. 50/- no other amount had been taken by any person and it was given out that it was Kalusingh who had taken away the sum from Amarsingh. He also said that Amar Singh did not state so far as the accused Poonmaram is concerned. The learned Sessions Judge observed that he is a police constable, and therefore, supported the accused persons one of whom Kalusingh is also police constable. But on this ground the statement of witness on which reliance was placed by the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. It does not appear that he was adverse to the prosecution, otherwise permission from the court would have been sought to put questions to him in the nature of cross examination. Therefore, from the statement of Smt. Kanwara and Amarsingh it cannot be said that a sum of Rs. 50/- was taken away and beating was given to Amarsingh. It can also be said that a sum of Rs. 219/- was taken away by accused Somaram and Poonmaram from the tin box belonging to Kanwara. 9. Now the question is as to whether an offence under section 376 IPC is made out against accused Somaram. I have already referred to the statement of Kanwara while dealing earlier with the story of the prosecution as to whether any amount was taken away by any of the accused persons. Besides the statement of kanwara there is no other evidence on record to corroborate her statement. I have already referred to the statement of Kanwara while dealing earlier with the story of the prosecution as to whether any amount was taken away by any of the accused persons. Besides the statement of kanwara there is no other evidence on record to corroborate her statement. It is the case of the prosecution that so far as the clothes which she was wearing at the time of the incident she had washed them. The doctor does not also say anything about rape. No injuries were found on her person either on the private parts or any part of her body. That apart, she first stated that it was Poonmaram who committed sexual intercourse with her. When she was asked to point out the accused from amongst the accused, who had committed sexual intercourse with her, she pointed out Somaram as Poonmaram. As already stated earlier she was not knowing any of the accused prior to the occurrence and no identification parade was held during the investigation of the case. Thus on the matter on record, it cannot be said that accused Somaram committed any sexual intercourse with her. 10. In the result the case against the accused is rendered doubtful. Both appeals are allowed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the accused persons as aforesaid is set aside and the accused are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are on bail and need not surrender to their bail bonds which shall stand discharged.Appeal allowed. *******