Judgment Narinder Singh Rao, J. 1. Haider Khan, resident of Whity Bazar, Giridih, the appellant, stands convicted under section 376 read with sec. 511 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and a fine of Rs. 2000.00 , or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved, he had preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution version, in brief, is that on 7.7.1982 at about 8.30 A.M. when Sonamani P.W. was working inside a room of the premises of the Mica Factory of Shrawan Kumar P.W. at Giridih, of which the appellant was Karinda, the latter had entered that room, and attempted to commit rape on Sonamani P.W. On alarm raised by Sonamani P.W. her co-workers Basmatia Chamain and Sukarmani P.Ws. had arrived. On seeing them, the appellant had come out of the room. Basmatia Chamain, Sonamani and Sukarmani P.W. had then left the factory premises. The appellant had continued following them. In the way, they had come across Jageshwar Lal Paswan and Sukhu Chauray P.Ws; who were with Darshan Marandi. On hearing the version of these ladies, they were brought to police station, Giridih, where, the case against the appellant was registered on the basis of the report Ext. 2 of Sonamani P.W. After completion of the investigations, the appellant was chargesheeted. 3. Out of seven witnesses examined by the prosecution, Sonamani P.W. 6 is the victim, and Basmatia Chamain P.W. 5 and Sukarmani P.W. 7 are the alleged eye-witnesses. Jageshwar Lal Paswan P.W. 1 and Sukhu Chauray, P.W. 4 had taken Sonamani P.W. to the police station for lodging the F.LR. Shrawan Kumar Gupta P.W. 2 is the owner of the factory premises. The evidence of Aditya Prasad P.W. 3 is formal in nature. He had proved Ext. I, the statement of Sonamani P.W. u/s. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The appellant, in his examinations, had denied the prosecution allegation, and stated that he was innocent. He had not examined any witness in his defence. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and records carefully gone through. According to prosecution, Basmatia Chamain and Sukarmani P.Ws. 4. The appellant, in his examinations, had denied the prosecution allegation, and stated that he was innocent. He had not examined any witness in his defence. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard, and records carefully gone through. According to prosecution, Basmatia Chamain and Sukarmani P.Ws. had been attracted to the spot on hearing "hulla" of Sonamani P.W. and then they had seen the appellant attempting to commit rape on Sonamani P. W. However, at trial, Sonamani P.W. had deposed that earlier to the reaching of Basmatia Chamain and Sukarmani P.Ws. in that room, the appellant had already got out of the same. As such, Basmatia Chamain and Sukarmani P.Ws. are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrance. 6. The success of the prosecution in the case rests on the evidence of the solitary statement of Sonamani P.W. After carefully scrutinishing her evidence, it is found that the same is not worth relying upon. Sonamani P.W. had stated at trial that on the preceding day of the occurrence, the appellant had, through Basmatia Chamain P.W., offered Rs. 50.00 for her sharing bed with him, but she had refused to indulge in sexual intercourse with him. That being so, Sonamani P.W. would not have gone with Basmatia Chamain P.W. on the following day for getting work from the appellant, unless she had become a consenting party for doing sexual act. Again, Sonamani P.W. would not have remained all by herself inside the room knowing fully in advance about the evil designs of the appellant towards her. Her version that she had raised any hulla is conspicuoulsy missing from Ext. 1. In the given circumstances, Sonamani P.W. does not appear to be belonging to the category of such witnesses, on whose sole testimony the conviction can be recorded, Jageshwar Lal Pas wan P.W. to whom Sonamani P.W. had allegedly narrated the occurrence had turned hostile to the prosecution. He had deposed that Soriamani P.W. had not told him anything about the occurrence. Shravan Kumar Gupta P.W. had also disowned the prosecution version by deposing that any occurrence of the type stated had not taken place in his factory premises. As regard evidence of Sukhu Chauray P.W. the same hardly carried any conviction when that of the main witness Sonamani P.W. has not been found worth relying upon. Shravan Kumar Gupta P.W. had also disowned the prosecution version by deposing that any occurrence of the type stated had not taken place in his factory premises. As regard evidence of Sukhu Chauray P.W. the same hardly carried any conviction when that of the main witness Sonamani P.W. has not been found worth relying upon. Undoubtedly, the material brought on record is insufficient for bringing home the guilt against the appellant. 7. For reasons stated above, the prosecution having remained unsuccessful in proving its case beyond all shadow of doubt, this appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted. The conviction and sentence bf the appellant are set aside, and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled, and he is discharged from the liabilities of the same. The fine, if realized from the appellant is ordered to be refunded to him.