M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) JUDGMENT in the present appeal, preferred by Ramesh Kumar, would equally govern the disposal of the two connected criminal appeals No. 998 of 1982 and No. 1038 of 1982 preferred by Umesh Kumar and Shriram respectively all of whom, on their conviction under Section 376 IPC, have, each, been sentenced to five years RI. ( 2 ) APPELLANT-ACCUSED Umesh Kumar is a Constable in the S. A. F. and the other two accused persons Ramesh and Shriram are Homeguards in the Betul District. The prosecutrix Mst. Jamila, who was originally an Adivasi girl and later converted to Islam is a married woman, aged about 18 or 19 years. On 10. 3. 81, the prosecutrix, boarding the train at Kalyan, de-trained at Itarsi and boarded the passenger bus, for going to village Bhounwra, where her sister resided. By mistake, instead of getting down at Bhounwra, she got down at Shahpur, which has a railway-head Barbatpur. With intent to go to village Bhounwra, which too has a railway station Dhodhramohar, she went to the station and awaiting the arrival of the train, lay down on the platform where many other passengers were also lying down or waiting for the arrival of the trains. The three appellants accused, on their regular beat, came to the station, made certain enquiries from the prosecutrix and then directed her to accompany them to the police station. Instead of taking her to the police station, they took her to Jungle, adjoining Dudadso and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her one after the other. After sometime, police party arrived at the place and the accused persons took to their heals. The prosecutrix lodged the report with the police (Ex. P-i ). The appellants-accused were apprehended. The prosecutrix and the appellants-accused were sent for medical examination and so also their clothes. After due investigation, the appellants-accused were put up for trial. The appellants-accused claimed to be falsely implicated but adduced no evidence, in defence. The prosecutrix lodged the report with the police (Ex. P-i ). The appellants-accused were apprehended. The prosecutrix and the appellants-accused were sent for medical examination and so also their clothes. After due investigation, the appellants-accused were put up for trial. The appellants-accused claimed to be falsely implicated but adduced no evidence, in defence. The trial Court, relying on the oral testimony of the prosecutrix, partly corroborated by the medical evidence and partly corroborated by the oral testimonies of the two police constables P. W. 2 Bachchulal and P. W. 3 Balajirao, who had seen these appellants-accused taking away the prosecutrix with them, towards Dudadeo temple and onwards and not to the police station held all the three appellants accused guilty of the offence in question and convicted and sentenced them to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now their respective appeals. ( 3 ) THE respective counsel for the appellants accused have advanced similar arguments and have urged, in the first place, that the prosecutrix is not a truthful witness, inasmuch as, her oral testimony is at variance with her FIR and with the statements of other witnesses; and also inasmuch as, she is not found to be substantially corroborated by other witnesses, more particularly by the medical evidence. Absence of any injuries on her person, is stated to be an indication of the fact that, at worst, the prosecutrix may be a consenting party. The identification proceedings are stated to be no proved; and as such, it is argued that identification of the actual culprit is not free from doubt, since the appellants-accused were not known to the prosecutrix from before. ( 4 ) I have scrutinized the whole evidence on record in the light of the arguments pressed. On scrutiny of the trial Courts Judgment, it may be observed that the trial Court, despite several inconsistencies in the story of the prosecutrix, has unduly relied on her version, more particularly in the circumstance when there was no cogent corroboration to the prosecution story either from any eye-witnesses or even from medical evidence. It is also noticed that the injury report regarding the prosecutrix has not been proved, at all, nor the test identification proceedings wherein the prosecutrix is stated to have identified only one appellant accused viz. Umesh Kumar and not the other two (Ex. P-24 ). It is also noticed that the injury report regarding the prosecutrix has not been proved, at all, nor the test identification proceedings wherein the prosecutrix is stated to have identified only one appellant accused viz. Umesh Kumar and not the other two (Ex. P-24 ). Undue emphasis is found to be given by the trial Court regarding absence of smegma around the glans, in face of the apparent circumstance that all these appellants-accused are grown-up persons and duly married in all probability. ( 5 ) ON scrutiny of the prosecutrix oral testimony as PW. 1, it may be observed, in the first place, that her social and economic background is of an order that her oral testimony requires close scrutiny. She was originally a woman belonging to aboriginal tribe. In her very childhood, she was an orphan. She was picked up and brought up by some Muslim who took her to Kalyan in Bombay State. She, thus, converted herself to Islam and married a Muslim. She is a grown up woman who had been visiting the place of her birth quite at times, if not regularly. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the prosecutrix whole evidence, it can safely be stated that her testimony on oath regarding gang rape, does not inspire forthright credence by itself nor does it inspire credence even when judged in the light of other attending circumstances and other evidence. In her FIR (Ex. P 1), she has stated that she had met only these three appellants accused at the railway station and these three alone had taken her on the pretext that they were going with her to the police station. She has also stated that instead of taking her to the police station, they expressed that they would take her to bus stand from where she could go to her village. In the FIR it is also stated that all the three accused persons had gone for easing themselves out in a pit and after returning from there, they had caught hold of her legs and bands, had gagged her mouth and after dragging her towards a shrubery, had committed forcible rape on her one after the other. In the FIR it is also stated that all the three accused persons had gone for easing themselves out in a pit and after returning from there, they had caught hold of her legs and bands, had gagged her mouth and after dragging her towards a shrubery, had committed forcible rape on her one after the other. All these details do not find place in her oral testimony, although she has stated in the FIR that these three appellants-accused alone had taken her from the Barbatpur station on the pretext of carrying her to the police station. Contrary to the FIR, she has stated in her oral testimony that these appellants-accused had gone to drink water in the jungle. She does not say that they bad gone out for eating themselves. She also does not say in her deposition that her legs and hands were tied by any of these appellants accused. It is deposed by her that she bad offered resistance and had grappled with the appellants-accused and in the course of grappling, she had received some injuries on her legs, hands and cheeks There is no such mention in the FIR regarding any injuries nor is the fact that she does not claim to know any of the appellants-accused from before. From her evidence, it is found that she bas mentioned the names of all these appellants-accused in the FIR on the basis of the information provided to her by some police people (para 28 P. W. 1 ). Had she been in long company of these appellants- accused, she would positively have identified them in the test-identification proceedings which had taken place; but according to her own version, she claims to have identified only one of them i e. Umesh Kumar and even in the matter of this identification, she is found to have admitted during her cross-examination that all the three appellants-accused bad been pointed out to her by the police just before the holding of the test-identification proceedings (Para 31 ). Evidence of such a witness, who obviously is a star witness is found to be one which cannot be readily believed. ( 7 ) THERE is no other evidence also to substantially corroborate her oral testimony and her FIR. Injury report is not proved; and as such, it may be presumed that there were no injuries on her person. Evidence of such a witness, who obviously is a star witness is found to be one which cannot be readily believed. ( 7 ) THERE is no other evidence also to substantially corroborate her oral testimony and her FIR. Injury report is not proved; and as such, it may be presumed that there were no injuries on her person. Question of resistance stands ruled out. P. W. 2 police constable Bachchulal and P. W. 3 Balajirao also do not support the basic features of the story given out by the prosecutrix herself. According to these police constables P. W. g Bachchulal and P. W. 3 Balajirao bad started from railway station Barbatpur along with the prosecutrix does not say so, and does not mention the presence of these two prosecution witness. It is obvious that these two prosecution witnesses are either fake witnesses or the prosecutrix herself has not come forward with a true story. From the evidence of these two constables, it is further found that after reaching the temple near Dudadeo, the appellant-accused. Shriram told these constables that be know the prosecutrix from before and that he had arranged for her journey by Chhatisgarh train; therefore, be would not take her to the police station and it was on his insistence that these three appellants-accused did not take her to the police station and took her away to another direction. The statements of these police constables also show that the prosecutrix had also informed these two constables viz. Bachchu Lal and Balajirao that she wanted to go in the company of Shriram and therefore, these two constables were helpless in the situation. Evidence of these two police constables obviously raises suspicion regarding the character of the prosecutrix herself and possibility cannot be ruled out that Shriram knew the prosecutrix intimately from before or he somehow manipulated her in his favour while he had accosted and met her at Barbatpur railway station. It may well be, that the prosecutrix who was an illiterate aboriginal woman, may have yielded to the avowed intentions of the three appellants-accused, prominent amongst whom was Shriram. It may well be, that the prosecutrix who was an illiterate aboriginal woman, may have yielded to the avowed intentions of the three appellants-accused, prominent amongst whom was Shriram. Medical evidence offers no cogent support and mere absence of smegma on the private parts of these three appellants-accused does not convincingly show their involvement in the offence in question and even if it be so, the whole incident prima facie appears to be that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to all that what bad happened to her while she had gone in the company of the appellants accused. ( 8 ) ANYWAY, considering all the oral and documentary evidence on record, it can safely be stated that there is no cogent and sufficient legal evidence on record to convincingly pinpoint the guilt against the three appellants accused who, as such, deserve to be acquitted by giving them, the benefit of doubt in fact of week and inconsistent evidence; although there may well be sufficient material to proceed against them departmentally in the matter of their overall conduct on the relevant night which was hardly unbecoming of their office which they hold. Custodians of law and order are meant to help the citizens in their plight, more particularly the women-folk, and are not expected to take undue advantage of their loneliness, penury, illiteracy or simplicity. Anyway, all this is a matter for consideration for superior officers of the particular departments wherein these appellants-accused are respectively employed. As it is, in the instant case, the appellants accused deserve to be acquitted. ( 9 ) IN the result, thus, the present appeal and the connected two appeals are all allowed. Setting aside the respective orders of convictions and sentences as passed against the appellants-accused Ramesh Kumar, Umesh Kumar and Shriram, be and is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 376 Indian Penal Code and their respective bail-bonds are, therefore, discharged. Appeal allowed. .