JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated 22-1-1976 whereby the learned trial court has acquitted accused-appellant Jirua from the offence under section 376 IPC and has further acquitted accused Navi Khan and Islam from the offence under section 323 IPC and hence this State appeal against the judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that on 8th of March, 1974 at about 1 O'clock Mst. Kallo was returning from the jungle after supplying meals to her uncle PW 5, Heera situated in village Goghor. When she came five to six fields away from her uncle's field accursed Jirua was found sitting near a 'nala' . He caught hold of her hand, felled her down and committed rape with her. It is alleged that Kallo raised an alarm which attracted the attention of Heera and Deep Chand who came running and caught hold of Jirua but he released himself from their hold and ran away. Mist. Kallo then went to her house and informed her father Shivli about it. Shivli then went to remonstrate Navi Khan, father of the accused but the three persons viz., Jirua, Navi Khan and Islam along with two other companions Sidha and Rustam attacked him with Lathis and caused simple injuries to him. He then went to police station Kama and lodged a written report about it on 9-3-1974 at 6 a.m. The police station is situated at a distance of 12 miles from village Goghor. In pursuance of the report, FIR was written and marked as Ex.P 1. The site plan and site inspection memo has been marked Ex. P.2. The medical examination of Mst. Kallo was got conducted and the medical report regarding rape and age of the girl has been marked Ex. P 7. The radiological report has been marked Ex.P 8. The injury report of Shivli has been marked Ex. P 9. The X-ray plate of Mst. Kallo has been marked Ex.P 10. After usual investigation the case against accused appellant 'Against judgment dated 22-1-1976 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur was challenged in the court of learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Deeg from where it was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge from where it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur who tried the case. After usual investigation the case against accused appellant 'Against judgment dated 22-1-1976 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur was challenged in the court of learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Deeg from where it was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge from where it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur who tried the case. The accused Jirua was charged with an offence under section 376, IPC where as Navi Khan and Islam have been charged with Section 323, IPC. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial whereupon the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC. They examined two witnesses in their defence. After hearing the parties, the learned lower court decided the case as aforesaid. 3. Mr. N.D. Khan has not challenged the acquittal of accused persons Navi Khan and Islam. He has only challenged the acquittal of accused firua from the offence u/s 376, IPC. 4. We have heard Mr. N.D Khan, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri M.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the accused respondent. In this case the most material witness whose statement has great bearing on the decision of this appeal is that of PW 10 Mst. Kallo. She has stated that when she was coming from the field of her uncle Heera and was going towards her own house, Jirua caught hold of her, felled her down, raised her 'ghaghara' and committed rape. According to her, the accused also discharged. She stated that she became unconscious and was lifted from there and was taken to her house by her relatives. On hearing her cries Beera and Bilandi came. She has admitted in her cross-examination that in the fields nearby the owners of the fields were working. She has further admitted that her 'ghaghara' was stained with blood as well as semen because of the discharge of the accused. The ground where she was felled down was ful of pebbles and 'sarkandas', her bangles got broken, she got injuries on her waist, hips, elbows, there were scratches on her breasts, her shirt was torn and there were signs of two bites on her cheek.All these injuries according to her were shown to the doctor. Her torn shirt and 'ghaghara' were taken in possession by the police. Her torn shirt and 'ghaghara' were taken in possession by the police. She has admitted in her cross-examination that she is a married lady and she remained un-conscious for 2-3 hours. According to Mst Kallo the accused had run away from the place of occurrence as soon as Heera and Bilandi arrived there. It is, therefore, clear from her statement that neither Bilandi nor her uncle, Heera are the eye witnesses of the occurrence In the FIR it is alleged that Deep Chand came with Heera but Mst. Kallo has stated that Bilandi came there. Neither Deep Chand nor Bilandi has been examined by the prosecution. Only one Badlu has been examined as PW 4 and he has stated that the girl did not tell him that the accused has committed any rape with her. Thus the only corroboration that can be offered to her statement should come from the medical testimony. Mr. Khan has frankly conceded that there is no chemical report on record regarding the presence of blood and semen on the 'ghaghara' of Mst. Kallo. So far as injuries are concerned. Dr. Shri Prem Prakash Goyal PW 11 has stated that he did not find any semen or blood stains on the external genitals and thighs, of the girl. There were no external mark of injuries on her thighs, labia, minora and majora, although some slight tenderness was present. The hymen was torn postero laterally on right side and edges of tear were red and for chetes was normal. The vagina admitted one finger easily. No tear of vaginal wall was found and no spermatozoa was detected. Thus according to the opinion of the doctor there were no injuries what so ever either on her hips or her breasts & there were no teeth bite marks on her cheek. Only hymen was torn but it is not known that it was recently torn. She is a married lady and this fact has been admitted by her in her cross examination. It is not the case of the prosecution that her 'gauna' has not been performed. She is aged about 15 to 16 years and therefore, being a married lady it is quite possible that her hymen might have been torn because of sexual intercourse which her husband might have done with her. It is not the case of the prosecution that her 'gauna' has not been performed. She is aged about 15 to 16 years and therefore, being a married lady it is quite possible that her hymen might have been torn because of sexual intercourse which her husband might have done with her. This particular aspect of the doctor's testimony is not suggestive of the one and the only inference that she hes been raped by Jirua. The fact that she became unconscious at the spot has been controverted not only by her uncle Heera but her father Shivli also and her mother Banni PW 3. All the three witnesses have stated that the girl never became unconscious and she walked down to her house of her own and thus her statement that she became unconscious because of this forcible intercourse appear to be false. When her statement has not been corroborated by the medical testimony and as per per own admission there is no other eye- witnesses of the occurrence, the learned lower Curt was perfectly justified in taking the view that the prosecution has failed to conclusively prove that accused Jirua had committed rape with Mst. Kallo and, therefore, it has rightly extended benefit of doubt to him and has rightly recorded acquittal in his favour. We find no infirmity in this conclusion of the learned lower court. 5. In the result the appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******