A. C. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Alipore convicting and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was charged under section 376 I. P. C. and under section 379 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge held that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the charge under sections 379 and 370 I. P. C. and that therefore the said two charges failed but that the evidence justified conviction under section 354 I. P. C. and accordingly passed the order of conviction and sentence noted above. Hence this appeal. Learned advocate for the appellant argued before us that the facts and circumstances of this case clearly point out that the whole prosecution case brought before the court was Improbable and that the accused has been falsely implicated out of grudge. ( 2 ) BEFORE considering the points urged by the learned advocate for the appellant the prosecution case may be briefly noted; The victim girl P. W. 1 lived with her mother-P. W. 4, her sister-P. W. 3 father and other brother and sisters in Ambagan Railway Quarter at Naihati. The appellant also resided in the same colony. He lived in the Railway Quarter opposite to the one where P. W. 1 resided with her parents and brothers and sisters. On 22. 7. 73 the victim girl-P. W. 1 then aged about 17 years, went with her sister-P. W. 3 to witness a cinema show. That show started at 5-30 p. m. and ended at 8 p. m. Before they left their home for going to cinema they were asked by their mother- P. W. 4 that they should return early. When they were returning after the show they met the accused on the road. The accused caught P. W. 1 by the hand. Another person was with the accused. That person kept P. W. 3 detained on the road. P. W. 1 shouted and the accused put a portion of P. W. 1 sari into the mouth of P. W. 1. The accused then took P. W. 1 to a bush lying at, a distance of about 20 cubits from the Railway Institute and took out the sari and saya of P. W. 1. P. W. 1 shouted and the accused put a portion of P. W. 1 sari into the mouth of P. W. 1. The accused then took P. W. 1 to a bush lying at, a distance of about 20 cubits from the Railway Institute and took out the sari and saya of P. W. 1. The accused kept P. W. 1 in the bush for about two hours. She was made to lie down on the ground and the accused did everything with his hand. After about two hours when the accused allowed P. W. I to go, P. W. I went home running. P. W. 3 who was detained by the other person was allowed to leave the place by that person about 10/15 minutes after P. W. 1 was caught by the accused and taken towards the bush. P. W. 3 went home but she waited at the gate of the house for about two hours and thereafter when P. W. 1 returned weeping she and P. W. 1 entered home and reported the occurrence to her mother-P. W. 4. Their father was then in his office doing night duty. P. W. 1 and her mother-P. W. 4 went to the office bf the P. W. 8 at about 12 midnight wherefrom the father of P. W. 1 was asked over the phone to come home but the father did not come that night. The father of P. W. 1 returned in the following morning and thereafter P. W. 1 and 4 went to the Police Station where P. W. 1 lodged the F. I. R. on 23. 7. 73 at 12-05 p. m. and the present case was, started. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate for the appellant submitted that the prosecution gave up its original case of rape because the Medical Officer-P. W. 9 on examination of the victim girl, P. W. 1 on 24. 7. 73 ruled out the possibility of commission of any rape within 10/12 days before the examination thereby falsifying the prosecution story of rape made out in the F. I. R. where it is stated by the victim girl that she was ravished twice by the accused and that on this ground alone the prosecution case should be thrown aside. 7. 73 ruled out the possibility of commission of any rape within 10/12 days before the examination thereby falsifying the prosecution story of rape made out in the F. I. R. where it is stated by the victim girl that she was ravished twice by the accused and that on this ground alone the prosecution case should be thrown aside. We are unable to consider the contradiction between the F. I. R. that P. W. 1 was forcibly ravished twice by the accused and the evidence of P. W. 1 that the accused did everything with his hand, because P. W. 1 was not confronted with her previous statement in the FI. R. according to rules prescribed ill section 145 of the Evidence Act. ( 4 ) BUT the other circumstances pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant, considered together, lent support to the contention put forward by the learned advocate for the appellant that the prosecution story is too improbable to be accepted according to the standard of proof set forth in section 3 of the Evidence Act. ( 5 ) SOME of the circumstances of the case supporting the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant are noted below: ( 6 ) IT is true that each of the circumstances pointed out by the learned advocate for the appellant in itself do not show that the prosecution case is false. As for example from the fact that the accused Tapan and others collected signatures on a mass petition to the government for asking us, to vacate our quarterst as admitted by P. W. 1 in her cross examination, about two months before the alleged occurrence, it cannot be said that on that ground the present case has been manufactured against the accused. In this connection the learned public prosecutor argued that on that ground such a case involving the prestige of a family cannot be instituted on a false allegation. This submission of the learned public prosecutor cannot be said to be unreasonable but on the basis of this proposition advocated by the learned public prosecutor the merit of a particular case cannot be evaluated. This submission of the learned public prosecutor cannot be said to be unreasonable but on the basis of this proposition advocated by the learned public prosecutor the merit of a particular case cannot be evaluated. Learned public prosecutor also contended on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 8 stating that at about 12 midnight P. W. 1 and her mother-P. W. 4 went to the office of P. W. 8 and that therefrom father of P. W. I was asked over the phone to come back home, that it should be held that the prosecution case as stated by the victim girl-P. W. 1 is true. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned public prosecutor. P. W. 8 says that he does not remember why P. W. 1 wanted her father to come back home. If the occurrence as alleged, would have taken place P. W. 8 who remembers making telephone call, would have certainly remembered the reason therefor. In this connection the fact that the father did not return home on that night inspite of the alleged telephone call, casts a doubt on the prosecution case, because normally a father is expected to return home after hearing such a grave occurrence as alleged. ( 7 ) NO finding can be arrived at on the basis of an isolated fact or a proposition regarding the particular course of conduct or behaviour pattern but findings should be arrived at on the basis of the total effect of the facts and circumstances of the particular case considered together. After considering the total effect of the entire facts and circumstances of this case we find that the case put forward is too improbable to be accepted according to the standard of proof set forth in section 3 of the Evidence Act. Some of the circumstances are noted below: ( 8 ) P. W. 1 says that the accused kept her detained in the bush for about two hours and that she was made to lie down on the ground and that the accused did everything with his hand It is very much improbable that a young man after taking out sari and saya of a young girl of 17 and making her lie down on the ground for about two hours would release her only after doing something with his hand. Although the Medical Officer-P. W. 9 who examined P. W. 1 on 24/7/1973 at I pm. found 6 scratch marks situated over the lateral surface of the right fore-arm, P. W. 1 does not say that she suffered any injury when the accused dragged her to the bush and made her lie down on the ground for about 2 hours. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 has said that there was loadshedding but the same is contradicted by the F. I. R. P. W. 1 says that she was taken by the accused to a bush about 20 cubits away from the Railway Bridge and from the Railway Institute. She states that Bijay Nagar School is about two miles away from the Railway Bridge. Her evidence that she did not tell the police that she was taken near the Bijay Nagar School by the accused is contradicted by the F. I. R. ( 10 ) SHE says that she was taken to the bush along Rajballav Road. Her evidence shows that is a thickly populated area. She says that if one crosses the Railway Line along the Railway over bridge at the station, one comes to R. B. Road (Raj Ballav Road) that 'the Railway Institute is situated just at that place-that the police camp is contiguous to the Railway Institute, that there are railway quarters on both sides of the road. ' and that 'she was taken to the bush along the Rajballav Road' that 'both the sides of the road there are shops and quarters. T In her examination-in-chief she said that she shouted on being caught. It has already been noted that P. W. 4 the mother of the P. W. 1 and 3 stated that she asked P. W. 1 and 3 to return early when they left for going to cinema. P. W. 1 says that she was detained by the accused for about two hours. P. W. 3 says that about 10/15 minutes after P. W. 1 was caught by the accused, she was allowed to go home and that after returning home she waited at the gate of their quarter till P. W. 1 returned. The accused is a known person residing in a quarter just opposite the quarter where P. W. 1 lived with her parents and other brothers and sisters. P. W. 4 asked the girls to return early. The accused is a known person residing in a quarter just opposite the quarter where P. W. 1 lived with her parents and other brothers and sisters. P. W. 4 asked the girls to return early. It is quite improbable that P. W. 3 after returning home, could wait for about one hour and forty five minutes at the gate of their house instead of entering the house and reporting the alleged actions of the accused who was their known neighbour. ( 11 ) AFTER considering all the facts and circumstances of the case some of which have been noted above, we hold the prosecution case that the accused took P. W. 1 to the bush has not been proved according to the required standard of proof. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside, the appellant is acquitted and the Appeal is allowed. Bail bond is hereby discharged. Let the records go down immediately.