L. RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was prosecuted under Section 376 Of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack and sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years, but in appeal the conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was modified to one under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence reduced to R. I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/-, in default to undergo R. I. for a further period of six months with a direction that out of the fine amount, if realised, a sum of Rs. 1200/- will be paid to P. W. 3, the victim girl. Being aggreived by such conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this revision. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in a sketch is that P. W. 3, a minor girl aged about 13 to 14 years had, in the evening at about 7. 00 p. m. on 30-4-1985, gone to the grocery shop in the village. While returning with the groceries she was caught hold of from behind by the petitioner, lifted by him and taken to a lonely place where he committed rape on her. Hearing her cry, P. W. 2 and some others came on theand pot and seeing them the petitioner ran away leaving the P. W. 3. At the same time her maternal uncle Dibyasingh Muduli also reached there. P. W. 3 went to the father of the petitioner in his shop and complained before him whereupon he sent her home though her maternal aunt assuring her to take up the matter. P. W. 3 coming to the house with her aunt narrated the incident to her mother and brother (P. W. l) who on the next day got her medically examined at the Primary Health Centre, Bentakar and from there went and lodged the information with the police who also referred P. W. 3 for medical examination at the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital. Such examination was made on 3-5-85 and after the investigation was completed, charge sheet was submitted under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Such examination was made on 3-5-85 and after the investigation was completed, charge sheet was submitted under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE petitioner adopted the defence of the allegations against him being completely untrue and to have been foisted against him because of the enmity of his father with the maternal uncle of P. W. 3 between whom long standing litigations were pending. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge on a thorough discussion of the evidence came to the conclusion that no case of rape on P. W. 3 had been made out. Such conclusion of his was based upon the fact that P. W. 3 herself did not make out any case of rape before the. doctors who examined her and the medical evidences also of P. W. 6, the doctor who examined her on 1-5-85 at the Primary Health Centre and whose report is Ext,5 and of P. W. 4, the Specialist who examined her on 3-5-85 at the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack whose report is Ext. 2, were that there was no evidence of rape on her. Not only her hymen was found to be intact but also there was no sign of violence on her like nail impression or biting mark nor any injury was found at or around her vagina. ( 5 ) EVEN though the learned Sessions Judge came to such conclusion, yet he held that though no offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code had been made out yet there was evidence of the petitioner having dragged P. W. 3 at the time alleged and held that it was outraging of her modesty and hence convicted him as above. ( 6 ) MR. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailing the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, has urged that on the very evidence relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to come to such finding, the conclusion reached is perverse and could never be reached. As appears from the impugned judgment reliance has been placed on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the medical examination reports, Exts. 2 and 5, to reach the decision of the petitioner having resorted to outraging the modesty of P. W. 3. As appears from the impugned judgment reliance has been placed on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and the medical examination reports, Exts. 2 and 5, to reach the decision of the petitioner having resorted to outraging the modesty of P. W. 3. The learned Session Judge took such view since according to him P. W. 3 had made the statement regarding her dragging by the petitioner at the earliert instance to P. W. land P. W. 2 which fact was also corroborated by the medical examination reports, Exts. 2 and 5. ( 7 ) MR. Mohapatra for proper appreciation of the facts of the case was permitted to place the evidence of the witnesses. P. W. lis the brother of P. W. 3. Admittedly he is not the person to whom the very first narration of the events was made. According to P. W. 3 herself, she had first narrated the incident to the father of the petitioner who sent her to her house through her maternal aunt and that when she made a complaint before him, her maternal aunt was present there. The maternal aunt has not been examined in the case. It is the P. W. ls statement that P. W. 3 told him and his mother at the house that the petitioner had lifted her to the backside of the smith house of Nakula Muduli which was a lonely place where there was a ditch and there the petitioner committed rape on her. P. W. 2 also stated that on hearing the cries of P. W. 3, he and others came running to the place and saw P. W. 3 coming towards them from the ditch behind the smith house and found the petitioner to be running away. He asked P. W. 3 as to what happened to which in the first instance she did not reply but when repeatedly asked by him, she told that the petitioner had lifted her and committed rape on her. He asked P. W. 3 as to what happened to which in the first instance she did not reply but when repeatedly asked by him, she told that the petitioner had lifted her and committed rape on her. P. W. 5 is the Investigating Officer who stated that P. W. 2 had stated before him that The did not ask P. W. 3 anything and that she went to the shop of the petitioners father without telling him anything and he had also not stated before the police that he had asked P. W. 3 regarding what had happened to her to which she did not reply and on being asked repeatedly, told that she had been physically lifted by the petitioner and had been subjected to rape by him. Thus the statement of P. W. 2 of having been a witness to the statement of P. W. 3 is not believable. Coming to the statement of P. W. 3 herself it is apparent that she is not a witness who can be relied on. In her deposition she gave vivid description of the act of rape supposed to have been committed on her, that the petitioner having performed the act of copulation removing her pant, that she suffered pain thereby and the petitioner to have also completed the act of intercourse. All such statements have been found to be grossly false. When the most important aspect of her evidence is found to be completely fabricated and false, it would not be prudent to place reliance on the other parts of her evidence. It is not a case, where certain part of her evidence being found to be false, yet the other part can still be utilized by separating the grain from the chaff since what is discredited is the grain and that having been discarded, the chaff cannot be relied upon. If P. W. 3 herself is not believable regarding her having been dragged by the Petitioner, such statement of P. W. 1 also does not become trustworthy. ( 8 ) COMING to the medical reports, Exts. 2 and 5, it is seen that Ext. 5 which is the earlier one showed that she had stated to the Medical Officer that when she was coming to the shop, she was dragged from behind by one person. ( 8 ) COMING to the medical reports, Exts. 2 and 5, it is seen that Ext. 5 which is the earlier one showed that she had stated to the Medical Officer that when she was coming to the shop, she was dragged from behind by one person. The deposition of the doctor shows that she had named the person who had dragged but he had forgotten to record the same. In Ext. 2 the other report shows that she made the statement before the other doctor that the petitioner had called her and when she went to him, he threw her downwards and sat over her and after two minutes she was left free as three persons came to her rescue. There is main difference between the statements of both the doctors. In this state of the evidence, it could not be said that there is evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, of the petitioner having dragged P. W. 3 and hence the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been established. ( 9 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. .