Judgment Narinder Singh Rao, J. 1. Man Bihari alias Ban Bihlari Lakra, and KaiJash Tonto alias Keno alias Tonto Mundari, the petitioners, stand Converted u/s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Feeling aggrieved that have preferred this petition in revision. 2. According to prosecution, when Salyani Mundu P.W. 8, was going from her house situate in village Burn Hundaru, district Chailbasa, to the rivulet (or bringing water and passing by the side of the bushes on 31-3-1978 at about 4.30 P.M., the petitioners and their one unknown companion had forcibly brought her inside those bushes and then each had committed rape upon her. In the meanwhile her maternal uncle Mahsi Hansada P.W. 4, on learning about the occurrence from some passersby, had thrown a stone in those bushes, and thereupon the petitioners and their one unknown companion had fled away. P.W.8, had then returned to her house and told about the occurrence to her mother Silwanti P.W. 9 and step-father Bishwanath Sonar P.W. 5. They had taken P.W. 8 to Police Station Geelkara where P.W. 8 had lodged bet F.I.R. Ext. 1 the same day at 8 P.M. The Investigations were carried out, and. after completion of the same the petitioners charge-sheeted. Out of nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, the evidence of Damodar Birua P.W. 1, Bikram Marandi P.W. 2, Pritam Apang P.W. 3, Abdul Rashid P.W. 6 and laljee Sahay P.W. 7 is formal in nature, The material witnesses, as stated above, are P.Ws. 4,5,8, and 9. 3. The petitioners, in their examinations, had denied the prosecution allegations and stated that they were innocent. They had alleged their false implication due to enmity. However, they had not examined any witness in their defence. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records it has been found that as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all shadow of doubts, this petition deserves to succeed. 5. In cases involving sexual offences, the age and character of the prosecutrix is of para mount importance. In the case in hand, there is no doubt that P.W. 8 had attained the majority much earlier to the occurrence. She had admitted in cross-examination, conducted on 11-9-1980. that she was then aged about 21 years. 6. 5. In cases involving sexual offences, the age and character of the prosecutrix is of para mount importance. In the case in hand, there is no doubt that P.W. 8 had attained the majority much earlier to the occurrence. She had admitted in cross-examination, conducted on 11-9-1980. that she was then aged about 21 years. 6. Now as regard the character of P.W. 8, the defence case has seriously been prejudiced because of non-examination of the doctor, who had conducted her medical examination. However her Medico-legal Certificate is available on record. Since no injuries or other signs were found by the doctor, she was not in a position to state whether P.W. 8 had been raped Or not. Further, it is also stated in that report, that at least no sign of rape was found in her private part. It appears that in the face of this damaging report, the prosecution had dishonestly not examined the doctor conducting medical examination of P.W. 5. 7. P.W. 8 had admitted that earlier to the occurrence, petitioner Man Bihari alias Ban Bihari Lakra had reported to the police against her stepfather P.W. 5 and mother P.W. 9 regarding their committing theft of electric motor and wires and that for that reason, P.Ws. 8 and 9 were feeling hostile towards the family of .Man Bihari alias Ban Bihari Lakra petitioner. Her that admission has highly probablised the defence suggestion about implication of that petitioner out of enmity. 8. Assuming but not holding, that sex was committed with P.W. 8 record is still silent to fix the identity of the petitioners as her ravishers. The given circumstances of the case did require in dependent corroboration to the testimony of P.W. 8, but the same is lacking. The only other eyewitness P.W. 4, although prosecutrixmaternal uncle, has not supported her version. He had stated that he could not identify any male emerging out of the bushes. He had also admitted that he had not found any marks of violence on the body, or cloths of P.W. 8. He was got declared hostile by the prosecution, and Additional Public prosecutor had put questions to him in the nature of cross-examination, but nothing material was brought in that cross-examination for showing that what P.W. 4 had stated at trial was not based on truth. He was got declared hostile by the prosecution, and Additional Public prosecutor had put questions to him in the nature of cross-examination, but nothing material was brought in that cross-examination for showing that what P.W. 4 had stated at trial was not based on truth. Again, P.W. 8 had stated at trial that third companion of the petitioners was Aetwa, and he was specifically, named by her in the first Information Report. But his name is not found mentioned in the same. Then from the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, it appears that number of culprits was three or more, but only the petitioners were being named as the only ravishers at trial. P.W. 8 had stated that she had found her mother at the Chouse on return. However, the mother (P.W. 9) was duly confronted with the previous police statement wherein it was recorded that she and her husband were away from the house, when P.W. 8 had returned and that they had learnt about the occurrence subsequently on reaching back to the house. Even the sequence, in which the petitioners and their alleged unknown companion had allegedly indulged in set with P.W. 8 has been changed in her deposition at trial. In the first Information Report, it was stated that the rape was committed in the first instance by that unknown companion and subsequently by Man Bihari alias Ban Bihari Lakra petitioner, and that in the meanwhile Kailash Tonto alias Kano alias Tonto Mundari petitioner had also arrived and behaved alike. The testimony of P.W. 8 at trial in this behalf is otherwise. Apart from these, there are other infirmities also in the evidence of P.W. 8, and for that matter in that of P.Ws 4, 5 and 9 also requiring rejection thereof. These P. Ws. were confronted with material portions contained in their previous police statements, but still the Investigating officer was not examined by the prosecution. That too had prejudiced the defence case. At any rate, the case against the petitioners is not free from reasonable doubt, and they deserve the benefit of the same. 9. For reasons stated above, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentences of the petitioners are set aside, and -they are acquitted of their charge. The petitioners are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.