N. K. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a jail appeal by appellant Kashiram against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in S. T. No. 11 of 1985, under his impugned Judgment dated 7- 11-1985, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, there under on each count to concurrent jail sentences for 5 years. ( 2 ) FROM the spot map Ex. P. 2 prepared in the case, it is clear that the agricultural fields belonging to appellant Kashiram Lodhi and late father of prosecutrix Mst. Rabudi (P. W. 11) adjoin each otherat village Hasarra, in P. S. Bamor-kala, District Shivpuri. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution story was that on the morning of 5-11-1984 at about 7 or 8 A. M. prosecutrix Mst. Rabudi w/o Harcharan and daughter of late Punnu had gone to her field to guard the crops. In the meanwhile at about 9 A. M. , she proceeded to the boundary of the field in order to drive away the heads of cattle, that had strayed into the field. Appellant Kashiram happened to be standing there, who forcibly caught hold of Mst. Rabudi and laid her down on the ground. He, despite resistence from Rabudi, had forcible sexual intercourse with her. After having done so, the appellant even robbed her of the ornaments worn by her, as described in the First Information Report (Ex. P. 13), said to have been lodged by her at P. S. Bamorkala, at the distance of 3 Kilometers from Hasarra. After recording the report, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and was examined on 6-11-1984 by lady Dr. Rashmi Kumra (P. W. 7) vide Ex. P. 11 who did not give any positive opinion about the rape, the prosecutrix being a married woman, used to sexual intercourse. Thereafter, she was again sent for medical examination for injuries, which was done by Dr. R. K. Sharma (P. W. 8) on 8-11-1984 and the latter happened to find 3 simple external injuries on her person vide Ex. P. 12. ( 4 ) THE appellant was arrested by the police as late as on 15-11-1984. In course of the investigation, the police seized certain ornaments under the seizure memo Ex. P. 9 in consequenceof the information supplied by the accused vide Ex. P. 12. ( 4 ) THE appellant was arrested by the police as late as on 15-11-1984. In course of the investigation, the police seized certain ornaments under the seizure memo Ex. P. 9 in consequenceof the information supplied by the accused vide Ex. P. 8 u/s 27, Evidence Act. Broken pieces ofbangles were also seized from the spot. The appellant was subject to medical examination on 15- 11-1984 vide the report Ex. P. by Dr. R. S. Shrivastava of, P. H. C. Khaniyadhan. ( 5 ) IN the Trial Court, the appellant abjured the guilt and stated that he had been falsely implicated due to malice by Samrath (P. W. 11), who according to the appellant, was intimate with complainant, Mst. Rabudi (P. W. 9): ( 6 ) I have gone through the record carefully and have given my anxious considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Having done so, I am of the firm opinion that this is a case of false implication. However, I feel unhappy that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who is sufficienty experienced, should not have been able to arrive at a correct conclusion in a case like this one. Even so, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge in regard to the prosecutrix being major happens to be correct. While in the F. I. R. (Ex. P. 13) the age of the prosecutrix has been noted as 20 years, she herself, while in the witness-box as P. W. 9. has given her age to be 15 years. However, in her medical report, Dr. Rashmi Kumra (P. W. 7) appears to have correctly estimated her age to be about IS years. On the basis of physical examination. Her medical examination report (Ex. P. 11) is negative. ( 7 ) WHILE Dr. Rashmi Kumra (P. W. 7) has not been able to decipher any injury on the person of the prosecutrix, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, she was again sent for medical examination to Dr. R. K. Sharma (P. W. 8 ). This doctor has come to note as many as 3 external injuries on the person of prosecutrix Rabudi, which goes to include even conjunctive hemorrhage in both of her eyes, which, according to the doctor was possibly due to throttling. R. K. Sharma (P. W. 8 ). This doctor has come to note as many as 3 external injuries on the person of prosecutrix Rabudi, which goes to include even conjunctive hemorrhage in both of her eyes, which, according to the doctor was possibly due to throttling. It is surprising that such indication of throttling dots not appear to have come to the notice of Dr. Rashmi Kumra (P. W. 7) who happened to examine Mst. Rabudi (P. W. 9) on 6-11-1984. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the alleged rape took place in the broad daylight in the field behind some Tatta. It is not known as to what was the occasion for the existence of a Tatta-inside the field. While the time of occurrence is noted in the F. I. R. (Ex. P. 13) as about 9 A. M. , Mst. Rabudi (P. W. 9) has gone tostate that she had gone to her field at about 10 A. M. (para 3 ). It is surprising that in broad daylight, the prosecutrix should be subjected to forcible sexual intercourse right inside her field, she did not raise an alarm and the persons in the adjoining fields did not come to save her. The cat is out of the bag in the cross-examination of Samrath (P. W. 11) alleged by the appellant to have been intimate with the prosecutrix. For, he admits in para 7 of his cross-examination that the police had caught hold of him 4 days subsequent to the occurrence. He, however, denies the defence allegation that a sum of Rs. 1,800/- was advanced by him to the police, in order to save himself. It has already been seen that the medical evidence on the point of sexual intercourse vide Ex. P. 11 is negative. ( 9 ) THE occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 5-11-1984. S. I. of Police, Shankarlal (P. W. 13) has not been able to explain the delayed arrest of the appellant on 16-11-1984. In his confusion, S. I. of police, Shankarlal (P. W. 13) has stated in para 12 of his cross-examination, that the arrest took place on 16-11-1983 while, on point of fact, it should be 1984. A young woman, like Mst. Rabudi (P. W. 9) who does agriculture, should not have been able to resist the alleged rape, if any, and committed during broad day time in open field. A young woman, like Mst. Rabudi (P. W. 9) who does agriculture, should not have been able to resist the alleged rape, if any, and committed during broad day time in open field. But, the prosecution does not stop sort of that, but even goes to attribute the alleged robbery of valuable ornaments from the person of the prosecutrix. However, the cat is again out of the bag, for as pointed to be the learned defence counsel, in the seizure memo Ex. P. 9. attributed to the so called discovery made on the part of the appellant, Goldsmith Moolchand, who had signed it, appears to have got recorded that ornament Lallari, said to be of gold, was of brass. I am not inclined to take seriously the statement attributed to the appellant u/s 27, Evidence Act (Ex. P. 8 ). The prosecution evidence in the case is repeat with contradictions improbabilities and inconsistencies\ In the spot map Ex. P. 2, in the index, the name of one Kanhaiya has also been noted as an eye witness of the alleged incident in Column No. 7 but this witness has not been examined by the prosecution, probably for the reason that he would Dot have supported the prosecution story while in the witness box. ( 10 ) I feel sorry that the appellant should have been required to remain in detention in a case like this since November, 1984. However, I cannot help remarking that while false implication of an accused in this region by the police could probably of understood, his conviction by an experienced Additional Sessions Judge is difficult to comprehend. The prosecution story in this case does not deserve to be touched with a pair of tongs. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. ( 11 ) THE result is that this appeal is allowed. The convictions of the appellant by the Trial Court u/ss. 376 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, as also the sentences imposed there under, are hereby, set aside. Appellant Kashiram is acquitted of the same. A direction shall be issued forthwith to the Officer-in-charge of the jail, where the appellant is confined to release him immediately, unless wanted in any other offence. .