JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal was heard at orders stage while hearing the bail application. 2. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 5th Feb., 88, by which, they have been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, u/ss. 341, 366 & 376, IPC, and sentenced as under : Conviction u/s Punishment 341, IPC 1 month's RI and a fine of 500/-, and in default, 1 month's SI. 366, IPC 5 year's RI and a fine of 1,000/-, and in default, 6 months' SI. 376, IPC 10 years' RI and a fine of 2000/-, and in default, 1 years' SI. All the substantive sentences of the accused-appellants, were however, ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case is that on 7th September, 87, one Nathu submitted a written report at PS - Dug, District - Jhalawar, to the effect that his son Shankar was married to Mst. Manoharbai some 13 years back, and from Manoharbai, he had two sons, one aged 8 years and the other 6 years, respectively. Manoharbai used to go to her father's house, alongwith her younger son and come back according to her own wishes. He and his son were living in different apartment, and his son used to do business of selling milk. He used to go to Dug to sell milk, where from, some times, he used to come back after selling the milk and some times he used to stay there. On 13th August, 87, his son, Shankar had gone to Dug, and Manoharbai, along with her younger child was in her apartment, and her elder son had gone with Nathu. On the next, i.e. on 14th August,'87, Manoharbai and her younger child, were not found in their apartment. He thought that she might have gone to her father's house, so, they waited for 8-10 days. But, when they did not return thereafter, they searched for Manoharbai's father and also at places of other relatives. In the apartment of Manoharbai, they could not find food articles or utensils, and as they did not know where Manoharbai had gone, this report was submitted. Thereafter, on 2nd October, 87, Nathu submitted another report of the same incident. But, when they did not return thereafter, they searched for Manoharbai's father and also at places of other relatives. In the apartment of Manoharbai, they could not find food articles or utensils, and as they did not know where Manoharbai had gone, this report was submitted. Thereafter, on 2nd October, 87, Nathu submitted another report of the same incident. While repeating the previous report dated 7th September, 87 therein, he stated that 3-4 days before, one person, resident of Jhala-ka-khera had come to Kayasara and told one Duleshsingh, son of Bapulal that one woman of his village was living with Sardarsingh of Kakdail for the last one month and that then Kalu was keeping her in his village Jhalra-ka-khera, and further that the said woman had one child aged 6-7 years. Duleshsingh gave this information to Nathu, and Ramsingh of his village told him that Babban Khan had taken away Manoharbai forcibly, and that they had gone with Bherusingh, and handed over Manoharbai to Sardarsingh of Kakdail, for selling her. 4. On both these reports, the police registered a case u/ss. 363, 366 & 368, IPC, and started investigation. After completing usual investigation, they submitted a challan against the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against Parbatsingh u/s. 341, Kalu u/s. 366. IPC, and against Sardarsingh, Bherusingh and Babbankhan under sections 341, 376 & 366, IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. After concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found that no case was made out against Kalu and Parbatsingh, and so, he acquitted both of them of the charges levelled against them. He, however, found the rest of the accused persons guilty and sentenced each of them as mentioned above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the convictions of the accused-appellants have been based on the solitary statement of PW 3, Manoharbai. There is no corroborative evidence to this statement. Even, there is no medical evidence to prove that any rape was committed on Manoharbai. She being a mother of two children, in the opinion of the doctor, was habitual of sexual-intercourse, and in such circumstances, the examination about the rape, could not be verified. There is no corroborative evidence to this statement. Even, there is no medical evidence to prove that any rape was committed on Manoharbai. She being a mother of two children, in the opinion of the doctor, was habitual of sexual-intercourse, and in such circumstances, the examination about the rape, could not be verified. It was also argued that from the statements of Manoharbai and other witnesses, it becomes clear that she was a woman of that nature, who used to leave the house of her husband according to her sweet will and go to her father's place, stay there according to her own wishes, and return to her husband's house according. So, the was a lady of the type who used to remain out of her husband's house without the permission of her husband, and even without bringing it to the notice of her husband or other members in the family. As such, the relations between the father and the son, were not cordial because of this lady, and they used to live in separate apartments. 7. It was also argued that Kalu had produced Manoharbai before the Notary-Public, before whom, an affidavit was sworn by Manoharbai, wherein, she stated that her husband used to beat her, and that she had been living with her husband for the last 8-10 years, and that during this period, she was maltreated by him. She further stated in that affidavit that she was doing work of labourer and maintaining her children, and further that she had not taken any ornaments, utensils or clothes from the house of her husband, and finally that she had left her husbands house of her own accord and without any sort of coercion or threat, and according to her own wishes, she was living at Jhalra-ka-Kheda. 8. The learned Sessions Judge did not find the case established against Kalu and Parbatsingh. Kalu allegedly was the person who had taken Manoharbai to Notary-Public, for getting the affidavit verified. So, she was with Kalu. According to the FIR, the information was that she was with Kalu at Jhalra-ka-Kheda. According to her affidavit, she was staying at Jhalra-ka-Kheda at her own will. Therefore, Kalu and Parbatsingh were acquitted of the charges. 9. In defence, 3 witnesses have been examined. 10. Akhtar Hasan DW 1 is a practising lawyer, who prepared the affidavit of Manoharbai. According to the FIR, the information was that she was with Kalu at Jhalra-ka-Kheda. According to her affidavit, she was staying at Jhalra-ka-Kheda at her own will. Therefore, Kalu and Parbatsingh were acquitted of the charges. 9. In defence, 3 witnesses have been examined. 10. Akhtar Hasan DW 1 is a practising lawyer, who prepared the affidavit of Manoharbai. He has proved that the said affidavit was prepared by him, at the instance of Manoharbai and Kalu. 11. Bansidhar DW 2 is a Notary-Public from Madhya Pradesh. He is also a practising lawyer. He has stated that the affidavit (Ex. D. 1) was sworn by Manoharbai, before him, and that she had put her thumb-impression on it, in his presence. 12. Therefore, from the statements of these two witnesses, it has been proved that the affidavit (Ex. D. 1) was got prepared by Kalu and Manoharbai had willingly sworn this affidavit before the Notary-Public. This affidavit is totally in contradiction to her statement given in the court. In her court statement, she has narrated the entire story saying how she was taken away by Babban, where she was kept and how she had been raped by the accused persons etc. So, in her court statement, she has narrated a story totally in contradiction to her affidavit (Ex. D. 1). 13. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the statements of Manoharbai, Akhtar Hasan DW/1 and Bansidhar DW 2. The affidavit (Ex. D. 1) has been proved, and I see no reason to disbelieve the contents thereof. There is no reason that the two advocates would tell lie and depose falsely for saving the accused-appellants. Even, from the statement of Manoharbai, I feel that her statement is not trustworthy. She was taken from one village to another, but, at no place, she raised any hue and cry. The was before the Notary-Public, who had no relation or connection with the accused persons; so, she could easily state before the Notary-Public, Bansidhar DW 2 that she had been enticed away by Babban and others, and was raped and maltreated by them. Therefore, in my opinion, the solitary statement of Manoharbai which is in contradiction to her own averment (Ex. D. 1), is unreliable. Her statement is not of any worth. Therefore, in my opinion, the solitary statement of Manoharbai which is in contradiction to her own averment (Ex. D. 1), is unreliable. Her statement is not of any worth. No doubt, on the basis of a truthful statement of a prosecutrix, conviction can be passed, but that statement should be of sterling worth. In this case, I find that placing reliance and convicting the appellants on the basis of the statement of Manoharbai, would not be correct. I, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. 14. In the result, the appeal is accepted. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges u/ss. 341, 366 & 376, IPC. They are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal accepted. *******