G. K. MATHUR, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15. 4. 85, passed by Sri G. D. Dubey, Sessions Judge, Balia, in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1985, whereby the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I. P. C. and the sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the revisionist by the trial court has been maintained. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, had been that in the night at about 11 on 4. 8. 84 the revisionist Ravindra Nath Misra came to the house of Smt. Pavitri Devi, widow of Bootan Singh, situate in village Baghai, post office Rudrapur, district Ballia and re quested her to accompany him to village Bolahari, to administer anaemia to a certain lady patient and that in the way of the patri of the drain of a certain Tube-well at the point of knife committed rape with her. It is alleged that coming back Smt. Pavitri Devi told the aforesaid fact to her mother-in-law Smt. Maheshwari Devi and got the report scribed from Ganesh Misra in the morning and lodged it at the police station Haldi on 5. 8. 84 at 3. 20 p. m. P. W. 8 Constable Sidhewar Singh prepared a chik report and registered the case. Smt. Pavitri Devi was sent for her medical examination. A lady doctor of women hospital, Ballia, medically examined her and gave the report as Ext. Ka 1. P. W. 6 Sudar-shan Ram Bhatri, S. I. made investigation of the case and took into possession the petticoat of Smt. Pavitri Devi (P. W. 6) and after making a local inspection prepared a site plan and submitted the charge-sheet against the revisionist. 3. The revisionist pleaded not guilty and specifically denied the allegations made against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity with Dr. Santanu and that the witnesses have deposed against him falsely out of enmity. He did not examine any evidence in defence. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the courts below fall in error in appreciating the evidence and have wrongly applied the provisions of Sec. 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act against the revisionist. Santanu and that the witnesses have deposed against him falsely out of enmity. He did not examine any evidence in defence. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the courts below fall in error in appreciating the evidence and have wrongly applied the provisions of Sec. 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act against the revisionist. His contention has been that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case because of incorrect appreciation of the provisions of the Act and also because of giving too much premium to the circumstance that the prosecutrix would not have levelled a charge of this nature without any basis against the revisionist. As a matter of fact the revision has been admitted because these questions were involved in this case. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the written report has been scribed by Ganesh Misra (P. W. 4) who happens to be an Advocate by profession at Collectorate Ballia. He pointed out that the place of occurrence has not been mentioned in the aforesaid written report. He also submitted that in the written report the stand taken by the prosecutrix was that the revisionist and the unknown person had committed rape with her. In the first information report besides the revisionist one unknown person was also mentioned as an accused in this case. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix (P. W. 5) Smt. Pavitri Devi has been to the effect that the revisionist alone committed the rape twice with her and that the unknown person who remained standing at a distance was asking the revisionist not to dishonour her. 7. From this deviation in the case, the learned counsel for the revisionist rightly argued that the evidence of the prosecutrix has to be read with caution and the cir cumstance that a lady would not make false allegations against her chastity loses sig nificance in this case. 8. Smt. Pavitri Devi (P. W. 5) the prosecutrix, was 28 years of age and happens to be the mother of two children and was widow at the time of the incident. There is nothing on record to show that Smt. Pavitri Devi was working as a medical attendant and that she was made to go by the revisionist with him in the night on account of her professional work. There is nothing on record to show that Smt. Pavitri Devi was working as a medical attendant and that she was made to go by the revisionist with him in the night on account of her professional work. Rather the case of the prosecution is that the revisionist was not known to the prosecutrix and her family members from before. In the F. I. R. it has nowhere been mentioned that the revisionist had persuaded her to go with him by giving assurance on oath that nothing untoward would happen to her. It is also not mentioned in the first information report that Smt. Maheshwari Devi the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix, was present when the revisionist took the prosecutrix with him at the relevant time. P. W. 3 Asturni Devi, a witness of the aforesaid incident of allegedly taking the prosecutrix by the revisionist from her house, has not supported the case of the prosecution. 9. In the first information report the time of taking the prosecutrix from her house is given as 11. 00 p. m. The evidence on the question of time is inconsistent. The prosecutrix has stated that she had come back after the commission of the crime in question to her house at about 10. 00 p. m. In the statement of Smt. Maheshwari Devi it has come that the revisionist had taken her daughter-in-law Smt. Pavitri Devi from her house at about 6-7 p. m. The statement of the prosecutrix on the point of place of occurrence is not in consonancy with the place of occurrence shown by the investigating officer in the site-plan. 10. The Medical Officer did not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix at the time of her medical examination and had opined that there were no signs of commis sion of rape on her. The medical evidence was obviously of no help to the prosecution. The petti-coat which has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer was also not sent to the Serologist for examination. 11. It has never been the case of the revisionist that he committed the rape with the consent of the prosecutrix. The provisions of Sec. 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act are, therefore, not applicable to the present case. The petti-coat which has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer was also not sent to the Serologist for examination. 11. It has never been the case of the revisionist that he committed the rape with the consent of the prosecutrix. The provisions of Sec. 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act are, therefore, not applicable to the present case. The presumption drawn by the Courts below that rape had been committed with the aid of Sec. 114-A of the Indian Evidence is uncalled for. 12. I have perused the statements of P. W. 2 Smt. Maheshwari Devi and P. W. 5 Smt. Pavitri Devi carefully. In the presence of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the statements of these witnesses do not inspire confidence and the conviction of the revisionist cannot be sustained. The finding of the court below against the revisionist under the circumstances is not borne out from the evidence on record. The revision deserves to be allowed. 13. The revision is allowed. The orders of the Courts below are set aside and the revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Sec. 376 I. P. C. If he is in jail and is not wanted in connection with any other case, he shall be released forthwith. Revision allowed. .