JUDGMENT 1. - Version of Smt. Raisham wife of Natbya aged 20 years of Village Mudiya, Police Station Salempur that Ram Bharosi appellant No. 1, on September 4, 1980 at about noon, committed rape with her in the field of Sugreev appellant No. 2 is so unnatural that it is difficult to be believed. 2. The avowed aim of Smt. Raisham was to cut and gather some grass from jungle and for that purpose in the m on of the said day, she was going to the jungle along with her husbands younger brother Moli. Both of them happened to pass through the way adjoining the field of Sugreev. It is alleged that Sugreev called Smt. Raisham and Moli and offered to oblige them by cutting of the grass from his field. Smt. Raisham readily agreed. Sugreev sent Moli to take over the plough from the hands of Ram Bharosi appellant No. i and sow the field so that both Ram Bharosi and Sugreev might smoke tobacco for a while. Then Sugreev stood as a watch-and-ward to facilitate Ram Bharosi to rare Smt. Raisham. Smt. Raisham raised a cry and on hearing, her husbands younger brother Moli came to her rescue, and both the appellants took to their heels. That is the entire case of the prosecution as expounded by Smt. Raisham. 3. It cannot be disputed that Ram Bharosi had sexual intercourse with Smt. Raisham on September 4. 1980 in the noon in the field. The injury report goes to show that Smt. Raisham had contusion 5 cm x 2 cm over the right side of chest. Abrasion 1/4 cm x 1/2 cm over the front of neck and some scattered abrasions. Ex. P/3 shows that Smt. Raisham was aged 20 years. She was a married lady having two issues. There was no bruishing. no lebracatal of vagina. However, white staining of the cloths was present There was no redness, no swelling, hymen was absent and no lacerated. The salvar which Smt. Raisham was wearing and which had white stains, was sent for chemical analysis and as per the report of the chemical analyst, human semon was detected on the salwar. "That only shows that sexual intercourse was committed with Smt. Raisham and there is no reason to doubt her statement that it was Ram Bharosi who committed this intercourse. 4. "That only shows that sexual intercourse was committed with Smt. Raisham and there is no reason to doubt her statement that it was Ram Bharosi who committed this intercourse. 4. The only question is whether it was committed without her consent or she was a consenting party to it ? A married lady going to gather some grass from the jungle accompanied by a tender-age husbands brother would so easily accede to the offer of Sugreev as to divert her movement from the jungle to the field of a person who was neither related to her nor even belonging to her religion and allows so easily her molestation even when her husbands younger brother was not at a distance is difficult to digest. It is also very unnatural that Sugreev would call her not for himself but for Ram Bharosi. There is nothing to show that she offered resistance. There was no injury detected on the body of Ram Bharosi to lend corroboration of force being used to him. The lodged of the First Information Report was on account of the fact that her husbands younger brother could see her lying on the ground having sexual intercourse with Ram Bharosi When a lady having intercourse with a stranger is exposed and brought to the notice of her husband the only excuse she could take wake that the sexual intercourse was done forcibly. 5. There was also delay in lodging of the First Information Report inasmuch as the incident took place at about noon of September 4,1980, but the First Information was lodged at 11 p. m. of the same day. It was not a straightway FIR by approaching the Police Station, but the FIR was not drafted from Sanwal Singh. Advocate at Hindon. Much colour could be given to he incident when legal advice is sought in such a situation. 6. I do hold that it was all with the consent of Smt. Raisham and not rape. There is also, therefore, no question of Sugreev abetting the rape. Both the appellant deserve acquittal for the offence for which they have respectively been convicted. 7. I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction recorded by the Addl. 6. I do hold that it was all with the consent of Smt. Raisham and not rape. There is also, therefore, no question of Sugreev abetting the rape. Both the appellant deserve acquittal for the offence for which they have respectively been convicted. 7. I allow this appeal, set aside the conviction recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge Gangapur City convicting and sentencing Ram Bharosi for the offence under Section 376, IPC and Sugreev for offence under Section 376/109, IPC and acquit both of them of the said charges and the said offence. Both of them are on bail. Their bail and bonds are cancelled. They need not surrender.Appeal allowed. *******