Judgment J. R. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the judgment dated March 27. 1978 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganga-nagar in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1977 whereby the learned lower court held the accused Sukhram guilty of the offence under sections 451 and 376 Indian Penal Code and accused Chunnilal guilty of he offence under section 451 Indian Penal Code. It has however, sentenced accused Sukhram and Chunnilal for the offence under section 451 J. R. Chopra, J.- These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated March 27. 1978 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganga-nagar in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1977 whereby the learned lower court held the accused Sukhram guilty of the offence under sections 451 and 376 Indian Penal Code and accused Chunnilal guilty of he offence under section 451 Indian Penal Code. It has however, sentenced accused Sukhram and Chunnilal for the offence under section 451 Indian Penal Code to one years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 250/- each, and in default, to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under section 376 Indian Penal Code accused Sukhram was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE facts of this case briefly stated ate that Mst. Shanti was earlier married to one Ramkaran before about 15-16 years. Out of this wed-lock she gave birth to three children before about one and quarter years, Ramkaran turned her out of his house. Her father also did not allow her to reside with him. Before about one and half months from the date of this occurrence, one Pokarram took her as his mistress but he too gave beating to her and turned her out of his house. Thereafter, she was allowed to live in one Kotha belonging to Dudaram situated in village Orki. It is alleged that on the night intervening between 3rd and 4th April, 1977 at about 12. 30 a. m. , when Mst. Shanti was sleeping with her children in her Kotha, accused Chunnilal opened the doors of her Kotha and entered therein. He told her that he will do co-habitation with her. She, however, persuaded him not to do so and thereafter, he went away. 30 a. m. , when Mst. Shanti was sleeping with her children in her Kotha, accused Chunnilal opened the doors of her Kotha and entered therein. He told her that he will do co-habitation with her. She, however, persuaded him not to do so and thereafter, he went away. It is alleged that thereafter, accused Sukhram entered into her Kotha and he forcibly committed rape with her and later, accused Chunnilal again entered into her Kotha and he too committed forcible rape with her. She then raised loud cries, on which, her neighbour Sheoram Nai and his wife also started crying. On hearing their cries, accused Chunnilal and Sukhram both ran away from her Kotha. On the next day at noon she related this incident to one Mohanlal and P. W. 3 Jagatram Sarpanch. They advised her to report the matter to the Police and, therefore, she took her god-brother Surajram with her to the Police Station, Hindumalkot and made an oral report of the matter. Her oral report has been marked Ex. P. 1. The Police inspected the site and prepared the site plan Ex. P. 2 and the site inspection memo Ex. P. 2a. The blood stained Ghaghra (Ex. 2) and vaginal swab were taken into possession. They were sent for chemical and serological examination vide memo Ex. P. 10. The chemical and serological examinations reports have been marked Ex. Ps. 13 and 14 respectively. The accused Sukhram and Chunnilal were arrested vide memos Ex. PA and 5 respectively. The Chadar (Art. 1), accused Sukhram was wearing at the time of his arrest, was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. P. 3. The medical examination of Mst. Shanti, accused Sukhram and Chunnilal was got conducted and their medical reports have been marked Ex. Ps. 7 to 9 respectively. After usual investigation, the case against the accused-persons was challenged in the court of learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, from where, they were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar who transferred this case for trial to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. ( 3 ) BOTH the accused persons were charged with the offence under sections 451 and 376 Indian Penal Code. They did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial, whereupon, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses in support of its case. ( 3 ) BOTH the accused persons were charged with the offence under sections 451 and 376 Indian Penal Code. They did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial, whereupon, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statements of the accused-persons were recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. They led no defence and hence, after hearing the parties, the learned lower court decided the case as aforesaid. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. D. C. Sharma, learned counsel for accused-appellants Sukhram and Chunnilal and Mr. B. C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have also carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 5 ) THE learned lower court held that Mst. Shanti was Jiving in the Kotha given by Dudaram to her. She was a deserted woman and was living there with her children but that fact did not give any licence to anybody to go and commit rape with her. The learned lower court also held that that hour of the night was not a suitable time for Chunnilal to go and ask Mst. Shanti to vacate the premises. It has, however, held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Chunnilal has committed rape with Mst. Shanti. It has prevailed with the learned lower court that these accused-persons have entered into her Kotha with guilty intention and accused Sukhram has actually committed rape with her and hence, it has recorded convictions against these two accused-appellants as aforesaid. ( 6 ) NOW, I have to see how far these findings of the learned lower court can be sustained on the basis of the record of this case. Mr. D. C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants Sukhram and Chunnilal contended that the story put forth by Mst. Shanti is most unnatural. According to him, when accused Chunnilal entered into her Kotha, she did not cry out. He further submitted that thereafter, accused Sukhram entered into her Kotha and committed rape with her forcibly but she did not raise any cries. It was contended by Mr. Sharma that according to Mst. Shanti, accused Chunnilal then again entered into her Kotha and committed rape with her but she did not raise, any cries till accused Chunnilal committed rape with her. Thus, the conduct of the prosecutrix Mst. Shanti is most unnatural. It was contended by Mr. Sharma that according to Mst. Shanti, accused Chunnilal then again entered into her Kotha and committed rape with her but she did not raise, any cries till accused Chunnilal committed rape with her. Thus, the conduct of the prosecutrix Mst. Shanti is most unnatural. It appears that she is a lady of loose morals as stated by Sarpanch P. W. 3 Jagtaram. According to Mr. Sharma, it may be that she being a deserted lady of easy morals, she might have allowed these accused-persons to co-habit with her and when somebody observed it, she raised cries. He has further submitted that it is strange that inspite of the fact that her neighbourers too, enquired from her as to what has happened, she did not disclose to them that these two accused-persons have committed rape with her. According to Mr. Sharma, it is strange that inspite of the fact that these accused-persons committed rape forcibly with her, no semen of blood stains were found on her thigh and vagina or no external injury was fauna on her vagina and that her clothes were also not found torn and hence, on the strength of such a doubtful testimony, the learned lower court has seriously erred in holding the accused-persons guilty of the offence under sections 451 and 376 Indian Penal Code. Mr. B. C. Bhansali learned Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the fact that the lady was deserted by her two husbands gives no licence to anybody to commit rape with her in that hour of the night. The Chadar recovered from accused Sukhram was not only found stained with human blood but semen stains were also found on it. Human blood was also detected on the Ghaghra of Mst. Shanti. A lady of such a poor up-bringing could not have resisted the attempts of the accused- persons to commit rape with her and, therefore, the evidence led in this case fully justified the convictions recorded against by these accused appellants by the learned lower court. ( 7 ) I have given my most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. The case totally hinges on the testimony of Mst. Shanti has admitted that she was turned out by her husband Ramkaran and she was not even allowed by her parents to live with. ( 7 ) I have given my most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. The case totally hinges on the testimony of Mst. Shanti has admitted that she was turned out by her husband Ramkaran and she was not even allowed by her parents to live with. Later she was taken as a mistress by one Pokarram but he too, gave beating and turned her out of his house. She further admitted that in between this period, she was earning her livelihood by doing the labour work. She has stated that after when Pokarram turned her out of his house, Dudharam who was her relations allowed her to live in his Kotha. She had no fixed abode to live in. She bas stated that at about mid-night firstly Chunnilal entered into her Kotha and at that time she was slapping inside her room by bolting the doors. How could accused Chunnilal get entry into her Kotha when the doors were bolted from inside the room without breaking the inside latches or chain to lock the door. Moreover, when accused Chunnilal entered her room and told her that he will commit rape with her, it is strange that she did not raise any alarm and she did not cry out. Rather she tried to persuade him to go out. She knew that Sheoram and his wife were sleeping just near her Kotha which fact stands amply proved from the site plan Ex. p. 2 then why she did not seen any help from them. It is alleged that accused Chunnilal agreed to her persuasions and went out and then Sukhram came and committed rape with her. She does not say that it the time when Sukhram was committing rape with her, she resisted his attempts to commit the rape or raised any hue and cry. Had she resisted the attempt of Sukhram in committing rape on her forcibly, she would have certainly received injuries and her clothes would have been torn but in this case neither any injury was found on her person nor any clothes were found torn. According to Mst. Shanti, thereafter accused Chunnilal also entered into her Kotha and committed rape with her. Even then, she did not raise any alarm nor she cried out. She only cried when both of them have committed rape with her. According to Mst. Shanti, thereafter accused Chunnilal also entered into her Kotha and committed rape with her. Even then, she did not raise any alarm nor she cried out. She only cried when both of them have committed rape with her. When her cries attracted the attention of her neighbour she. Sheoram and his wife, she did not ten them that these two accused-persons have committed rape forcibly with her. It appears to be most unnatural that she did not inform her neighbourers that she bas been ravished by these two accused-persons. Liter, she has stated that she informed on Mohanlal Arora at about 2 or 3 p. m. in the day that these two persons have committed rape with her. He asked her to bring this fact to the notice of the Sarpanch. P. W. 3 Jagatram has stated that Mst. Shanti came and told her that these two persons have committed rape with her and he advised her to go and report the matter to the Police. P. W. 3 Jagat ram has stated that this lady possessed easy morals and she was mostly found moving or loitering in the village. ( 8 ) P. W. 6 Dr. Kailash Nath Markanday has stated that on April 5, 1977, he examined Mst. Shanti at about 12. 20 noon and found that there was no seminal or blood stains on the pubic hair and on extemal genitals and thighs. He did not find any mark of injury on her private parts. Some blood was coming out of her uterus which, in his opinion was her menstrual flow. No semen was detected on her Ghaghra. The absence of semen marks on the ghaghra clearly belies the story of rape. Although blood this been found on her Ghaghra and that may be due to her menstrual flow. It is true that human blood and semen have been found on the Chadar recovered from the possession of accused Sukhram but nobody has stated that bow this Chadar was kept after it was seized by the Police. No witness has stated that its seals were kept intact till this Chadar was sent for chemical and serological analysis. Under these circumstances, the reports of the chemical and serological analyst its cannot be used against the accused appellants. No witness has stated that its seals were kept intact till this Chadar was sent for chemical and serological analysis. Under these circumstances, the reports of the chemical and serological analyst its cannot be used against the accused appellants. On the basis of the discussions of the evidence I disagree with the findings of the learned lower court that Mst. Shand is a reliable witness. Actually, the manner of occurrence which she has described clearly goes to show that if some co-habitation has taken place with her, it must have been done with her consent. Rather the absence of semen and blood marks on her pubic hair, external geitals and thighs belies the theory of rape put forward by her. ( 9 ) P. W. 4 Sheoram is her neighbourer and is a very independent witness, He is neither siding with the accused-persons nor he is inimical to the prosecutrix. This witness has stated that he did not see Sukhram there when Mst. Shanti was crying. Accused Chunnilal enquired from her as to why she was crying then she told Chunnilal that some body has entered into her Kotha. Accused Chunnilal then told her that she should vacate this Kotha as unwanted persons were on visiting terms with her. Even this witness has also not seen accused Chunnilal going to the Kotha of Mst. Shand. Looking to these facts and circumstances of the case and on the strength of this testimony, it cannot be held that these two accused i. e. Chunnilal and Sukhram had entered into the Kotha of Mst. Shanti in order to commit rape with her and further that accused Sukhram had actually committed rape with her. The case of the prosecution appears to be highly doubtful and, therefore, the accused-appellants deserve acquittal by giving them the benefit of doubt. ( 10 ) IN the result, both these appeals are allowed and the judgment of the learned lower court (Addi. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar) dated March 27, 1978 is set aside. Accused Sukhram is acquitted of the offence under sections 451 and 376 I. P. C. and accused Chunnilal is acquitted of the offence under section 451 I. P. C. by giving them the benefit of doubt. They are already bail. They need not surrender to their bail bonds. Their bail-bonds are hereby cancelled.