M. D. DHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the appeal of the accused Ramcharan, who on his conviction under Section 376 of the I. P. C. has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) IN the morning hours on 13. 11. 1980, P. W. 1 Mst. Phullibai, wife of P. W. 3 Devi, aged, about 25 years had gone to her Jawar field and from there she had gone with her bullocks to Kalught for quenching the thrust of her bullocks. When she was returning with the bullocks, the appellant-accused was stated to have caught her and to have felled her on the ground to have committed rape with her. On her cries of alarm P. W. 10 Ramswaroop Madotiya was stated to have arrived at the scene and on his chastisement the appellant accused was stated to have fled away. The prosecutrix Mst. Phullibai, on returning home at noon time, had reported at first to her father in law P. W. 7 Chetan alias Gajju and to have reported the incident to her husband P. W. 3 Devi when he returned from Railway duty in the evening. P. W. 2 Dhyam Singh of the village was stated to have been apprised of the incident promptly by the prosecutrixs husband. Report was lodged at the Police Station at the same night. After due investigation the appellant-accused was put up for trial. He claimed to be falsely implicated. The trial Court relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now the present appeal. ( 3 ) SHRI A. K. Pandey, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused has urged that the whole prosecution evidence is highly discrepant and full of mutual contradictions and therefore, the prosecution evidence was of no probative value. ( 4 ) I have scrutinized the evidence on record. In a rape case, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix particularly when she is a married and grown up woman must be scrutinized with abundant caution and care to ensure that it is not concocted or embellished to any extent. ( 4 ) I have scrutinized the evidence on record. In a rape case, the oral testimony of the prosecutrix particularly when she is a married and grown up woman must be scrutinized with abundant caution and care to ensure that it is not concocted or embellished to any extent. The prosecutrix Phullibai has no doubt, inculpated the appellant-accused as her revisher and has stated the attending circumstances regarding the same but her statement to the effect that Mudotiya Maharaj (P. W. 10) on hearing the cries had arrived at the scene and on his chestisement the appellant accused had run away is not found to be corroborated by Mudotiya Maharaj i. e. P. W. 10 Ramswaroop Mudotiya. P. W. 10 Mudotiya Maharaj has simply stated that on hearing the cries of alarm and on reaching the place near the ghat he had only seen the prosecutrix Mst. phullibai standing in a dis-leveled clothes, her body being partly naked and at that very time, the appellant-accused was seen running away towards the village. He does not say that he had seen the appellant-accused committing sexual intercourse or that he had ehestised him or had even talked to him. The fact that Ramswaroop Mudotiya may well not be the eye witness to the incident is also borne out from the circumstance that there is no mention of the presence of Mudotiya in the police statement of the prosecutrix husband P. W. 3 Devi, although Devi, in his evidence as P. W. 3 claims to have been apprised of this fact by his wife. Had Ramswaroop Mudotiya been the eye-witness and had he rescued Mst. Phullibai to any extent, the father-in-law Chetan, who does not say in the least that his daughter-in-law, on reaching home had apprised him regarding Ramswaroop Mudotiyas presence at the place, would have stated regarding the same. Therefore, corroboration of P. W. 7 Chetan to Phullibals statement and so also the husband P. W. 3 Devis corroboration to the wifes statement in the matter of the alleged rape does not appear to be convincing. ( 5 ) ANOTHER important witness is P. W. 2 Dhyam Singh, who as per the prosecution evidence, is equally stated to have been apprised about the incident by the prosecutrixs husband Devi. ( 5 ) ANOTHER important witness is P. W. 2 Dhyam Singh, who as per the prosecution evidence, is equally stated to have been apprised about the incident by the prosecutrixs husband Devi. This witness, contrary to his police statement, has stated that Devi had apprised him about the incident only on the next day morning and not on the very evening when some time earlier during noon the incident had occurred. Had Devi (P. W. 3) apprised Dhyan Singh about the incident and about what he had learned from his wife, there would have been mention regarding Ram Swaroop Mudotiyas presence in his earlier police statement (Ex. D 1) but here again there is no mention in this regard. Therefore, the story given out by the victim Mst. Phullibai and as tried to be supported by his father-in law and her husband does not appear to be convincing. ( 6 ) ANOTHER circumstance, to discredit Mst. Phullibais oral testimony, is the negative nature of medical evidence. The prosecutrix has stated that she was felled to the ground by the appellant-accused who had also given a tooth bite on her right cheek, but there are no external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix as is amply clear from P. W. 8 Dr. Phuspas evidence. Therefore, the prosecution story regarding the alleged rape is not free from doubt. As such, the appellant-accused deserves to be acquitted of the offence in question by giving him benefit of doubt. ( 7 ) IN the result, thus, the appeal of the accused is allowed. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I. P. C. and the order of his conviction and sentence, as passed by the trial Court is set aside. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal allowed. .