JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal Is directed against the judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned District Judge convicted the appellant under section 376 IPC, vide its judgment dated 30th March, 1981. The accused applicant has been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment under section 376 and under section 451 IPC, he has been sentenced three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50, in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 13-8.80 the accused Mal Singh visited the house of Mst. Sarju and committed the rape. First Information Report of this incident was recorded on 7-10-1980. Initially the information report was second incident, which is alleged to have taken place at about 9 p.m. It was alleged therein that Mal Singh and one more person abducted Sarju. It will not be out of place here to mention that in the first information report relating to the first information No. 153/80, recorded on 13-3-80, at about 11.30 P.M. there is no reference about the rape which is alleged to have taken place at 12 in noon. 3. On behalf of the prosecution 12 witnesses have been examined and on behalf of defence three witnesses have been examined. PW 1 Dr.Vimla Doshi is the Medical Jurist and she has examined the prosecutrix, on 14-4-80 at 8 p.m. She has stated that nothing can be said about the recent intercourse. 4. PW 2 Munshi Khan, PW 3 Nindelun, PW 4 Salim and PW 5 Rajendra Prasad have been declared hostile. PW 9 Mst. Sarju has stated that the rape was committed at 12 in noon on 13th August, 1980. PW 10 Munni has been examined. She is the mother of the prosecutrix. She has lodged the first information report No. 153/1980 at 11.35 p.m. on 13-8-80 at the police station Jothwara. The case of the prosecutrix is that 12 in the noon, rape was committed and thereafter Rajendra Prasad and Mst. Munni came on the spot and Smt. Surja norrated the complete story to her mother. It is very surprising that in the first information report which has been lodged on 13-8-80 the fact of commission of rape has not been mentioned at all. Munni came on the spot and Smt. Surja norrated the complete story to her mother. It is very surprising that in the first information report which has been lodged on 13-8-80 the fact of commission of rape has not been mentioned at all. For this reason the Investigating Agency subsequently recorded the first information report on 7-10-1980 i.e. after about seven weeks. This itself is a sufficient ground for not accepting the prosecution case at all. Apart from that, I had gone through the evidence of prosecutrix as well as the evidence of Mst. Munni and I do not find it trustworthy. 5. The appeal is accepted. The conviction of the appellant is set aside and the appellant if in jail may be set free at liberty, if not required in any other case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already undergone the sentence. However, it is the duty of the Court to see that the release order is also issued, so that there may not be any mistake in it.Appeal accepted. *******