N. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT Buchad alias Devendra Kumar has been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 1984 by the Sessions Judge, Bajnandgaon under sections 376 and 366 Indian Penal Code and sentenced there under respectively to rigorous imprisonment for four years and three years, sentences are to run concurrently. ( 2 ) IT is not disputed that at the time of the alleged occurrence the prosecutrix Mst. Parvati (P. W. 1) used to Jive with her husband who was a motor truck driver at Bajnandgaon. It is alleged that on the night of 22. 1. 1984 at about 9 p. m. appellant Buchad alias Devendra Kumar appeared at the door step of the prosecutrix house armed with a dagger and intimidated her with the same and dragged her to a distance of about half a furlong near the railway line close to D. N. C. Mills. While the prosecutrix was being dragged, a neighbour named Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2) tried to rescue her but Mehmood Khans wife came there and prevented her husband from getting involved in the affair asking him to leave the prosecutrix to her fate. Then the appellant forcibly laid the prosecutrix at a lonely spot on the ground and raped her at the point of dagger. At the same time he also asked her to become his wife. After this the prosecutrix came back to her house and told her plight to one Raj and also the neighbour Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2 ). The First Information Report (Ex. P-i) in respect of the occurrence was lodged by her in course of the same night at about 1. 15 p. m. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and, she was examined by lady Dr. Ku. Buddan (P. W. 6), vide Ex. P-9, who did not give any positive opinion on the point of rape, the prosecutrix being used to sexual intercourse. ( 3 ) IN the trial Court the appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated. In the trial court Mst. Parwati (P. W. I) Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2), Ramlakhan (P. W. 3), Madanlal Sahu (P. W. 4), P. B. I. Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 5), Lady Dr. Ku. C. Buddan (P. W. 6) and P. S. I. D. N. Sharma (P. W. 7) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. In the trial court Mst. Parwati (P. W. I) Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2), Ramlakhan (P. W. 3), Madanlal Sahu (P. W. 4), P. B. I. Mahesh Prasad (P. W. 5), Lady Dr. Ku. C. Buddan (P. W. 6) and P. S. I. D. N. Sharma (P. W. 7) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant did not examine any witness in defence. Upon an assessment of evidence on record, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty, has convicted and contended him as stated in the opening paragraph above. ( 4 ) I have considered the arguments advanced in the case by the learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Ku. S. Nagrath. Penal lawyer, on behalf of the State. I have also gone through the evidence on record carefully. Having heard parties, I am unable to uphold the conviction of the appellant. According to the prosecution case itself, the prosecutrix was dragged for a distance of not less than half a furlong in a locality where there were residential houses also. It is difficult to see as to why the prosecutrix could not raise any alarm so as to attract the neighbours. No doubt, Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2) goes to state that he was having meals inside his house when he heard abuses, came out of the house and saw the prosecutrix being dragged by the appellant, but added that as he sought to intervene his wife dragged him back, which is rather difficult to believe. In cross-examination he has contradicted his police case diary statement (Ex. B2) in material particulars. One Raj to whom the prosecutrix is alleged to have narrated the incident later on is reported to be dead. From the cross-examination of Parvati (P. W. 6) and Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2) it appears apparent that the prosecutrix presumably is not a woman of sound character. From her cross- examination it is clear that he has changed many husbands or rather the mention with whom she hadbeen living as wife. In the cross-examination there were also allegations to the effect that the prosecutrix had for some time resorted to prostitution though the allegation was denied by her. Against Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2) there were allegations in cross-examination to the effect that he had acted as pimp for the prosecutrix. In the cross-examination there were also allegations to the effect that the prosecutrix had for some time resorted to prostitution though the allegation was denied by her. Against Mehmood Khan (P. W. 2) there were allegations in cross-examination to the effect that he had acted as pimp for the prosecutrix. Whatever the case may be I am of the clear opinion that in the instant case it is difficult to take the testimony of the prosecutrix at its face value without proper corroboration. Unfortunately, the story of alleged rape has not been supported In the medical evidence. Lady Dr. (Ku.) C. Buddan (P. W. 6) has clearly stated that she could not give any definite opinion on the point at to whether there was any forcible sexual intercourse. No doubt, some scratches were found on the wrists of the prosecutrix but it is difficult to rule out the possibility that the scratches could not be self-inflicted or inflicted subsequent to the occurrence, in the peculiar circumstances of the case. ( 5 ) SINCE the prosecution evidence in this case has been found to be unreliable in support of the alleged offence punishable under section 376 Indian Penal Code. I am of the opinion that it could as well be Not relied on the point of alleged offence punishable under section 366 Indian Penal Code. In the absence of reliable evidence in the case, it is not possible to up hold the convictions. Before parting will the case, I may also observe that the learned Sessions Judge has imposed sub- minimum sentence in the offence under section 376 Indian Penal Code for which he has not given any reasons. However, in the absence of any appeal by the State for enhancement of the sentence, it is not necessary to go into further details on the point, for, in any case, the appeal is being allowed. ( 6 ) THE result is that the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant Buchad alias Devendra Kumar passed by the learned Sessions Judge under his impugned judgment dated 21. 9. 1984 are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the same. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with some other case. Appeal allowed. .