M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the appellant-accused Labh Singh, who on his conviction under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to five years R. C and to pay the fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of fine, to a further term of one years R. I. ( 2 ) THE victim of the incident is a married woman and a hospital nurse viz. P. W. 1 Mst. Kamla Singh aged 42 years. On 4. 11. 19151, P. W. 1 Mst. Kamla Singh, after receiving her salary at Gopalganj, boarded the truck for going to Seoni. The appellant-accused was stated to be the Driver of the truck and one Balvender Singh the conductor. The appellant accused did not stop the truck at Seoni. After some other passengers got down from the truck and when the prosecutrix was all alone with the truck driver and the conductor in the truck, the conductor and the appellant-accused both were alleged to have committed rape with her and to have left her at village Aloniya. She had lost her consciousness and on regaining the same, she went to village Aloniya and apprised P. W. 4 Rampal Singh and later lodged the report at Police Station Seoni on the next day morning after apprising her husband about the incident. She was medically examined and was found to have several contusions and abrasions on various parts of the body, as opined by Mrs. Choudhary vide injury report Ex. p. 8. The appellant-accused and his companion were put up for identification and then both were put up for trial. Both abjured the guilt and claimed to be falsely implicated. The trial Court did not believe the identification proceedings. However, relying on the prosecutrixs statement, corroborated by her husbands statement and the prosecutrix FIR, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused only to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence now, the present appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has stated that the identification having been disbelieved, there in absolutely no material to connect the appellant-accused as the author of the crime, inasmuch as, the prosecutrix herself did not know the appellant-accused from before. ( 4 ) I have scrutinized the evidence on record. Hence now, the present appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant accused has stated that the identification having been disbelieved, there in absolutely no material to connect the appellant-accused as the author of the crime, inasmuch as, the prosecutrix herself did not know the appellant-accused from before. ( 4 ) I have scrutinized the evidence on record. The trial court was obviously right in disbelieving the test identification proceedings conducted by P. W. 6 Anokhelal, vide identification memo Ex p 4 Anokhelals oral testimony clearly shows that the appellant-accused and his companion and so also the prosecutrix were all present side by side at the Police station and it was after this that the identification parade had been held behind the Police Station. It is obvious that the prosecutrix had occasion to see the appellant-accused before holding the test parade. This fact is also borne out from para 19 of the prosecutrix own averment as P. W. 1. Such test parade is of no probative value. ( 5 ) P. W. 4 Rampal Singh, who has been stated to have been apprised by P. W. 1 Smt. Kamla Singh regarding the incident on reaching village Aloniya is found to have turned hostile. The prosecutrix is found to be corroborated only by her husband P. W. 5 E. 3. Singh. The prosecutrix does not say in her evidence that her mouth was gagged with any piece of cloth although her husband P. W. 5 E. 3. Singh states that his wife had informed him about this. This is the material contradiction casting doubt on the prosecution story. Then again the prosecutrix does not say that she had offered any resistance or she was manhandled and subjected to any assaults. She only states that during her cries in the truck, gate of the truck had struck against her head but as it is, P. W. 7 Dr. Mrs. Choudhary has found as many assix injuries being contusions and abrasions. However, none was on the head region. Therefore, Dr. Mrs. Choudharys report also is not in keeping with the prosecutrix statement who has not said a word as to how she had come to sustain injuries on her knees, thighs, elbows, mandible, cheeks etc. Mrs. Choudhary has found as many assix injuries being contusions and abrasions. However, none was on the head region. Therefore, Dr. Mrs. Choudharys report also is not in keeping with the prosecutrix statement who has not said a word as to how she had come to sustain injuries on her knees, thighs, elbows, mandible, cheeks etc. Prosecution story for inculpating the appellant accused is not free from doubt and as such, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, by giving him the benefit of doubt, in face of highly week and scanty evidence against the appellant accused. ( 6 ) IN the result thus, the appeal of the accused is allowed. Setting aside the order of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial court under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, it is ordered that the appellant-accused be and is acquitted of the said offence by giving him benefit of doubt. The appellant accused is already on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Fine amount if realised be refunded to him. Appeal allowed. .