Judgment NARINDER SINGH RAO, J. 1. Sheo Shankar Sahu alias Prasad Sahu alias Sheo Shankar Prasad Sahu, the appellant, stands convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution version, in brief, is that about one month before 24-9-1983 at about 4 p.m. when Kabutri Devi (P. W. 8), then aged about 10 years, was collecting grass from a place situated at a considerable distance from the Abadi of her Village Aan, district Palamau, the appellant had committed rape upon her. He was still indulging in that crime, when Luxmi Devi (P. W. 5), wife of Rajesh Sahu P. W. 1, had seen him committing the same. P. W. 5 has raised alarm, and that had resulted in the appellants leaving P. W. 8 and running away. P. W. 8 on return to the house, had told about the occurrence to her aunt Balo Devi P. W. 3 and father Ram Autar Sahu P. W. 4. However, as P. W. 4 and his well wishers wanted to hush up the matter, no report was lodged with the police. It was after about a month of the occurrence that the police had learnt about the crime and arrived in the village on 24-9-1983. They had then recorded fardbeyan of P. W. 8 on that day at 6 p.m. and on its basis, case was registered. Investigation was carried out, and after completion of the same, the appellant charge-sheeted. 3. Out of 8 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P. W. 8 is the prosecutrix and her father is (P. W. 4). Rajesh Sahu (P. W. 1), Ramdhani Sahu (P. W. 2), Luxmi Devi (P. W. 5) and Birendra Prasad (P. W. 7) had not supported the prosecution ease. Balo Devi (P. W. 3) was only tendered for cross-examination. The evidence of Lal Suraj Nath Sahdeo (P. W. 6) is formal. He too had learnt about the occurrence much subsequent. Neither the doctor, who had conducted medical examination of P. W. 8 nor the Investigation officer was examined by the prosecution at trial. 4. The appellant, in his examination, had denied the prosecution allegation and stated that he was innocent. His defence plea was about false implication at the instance of his enemies, namely, Harkhori Sahu Peyari Sahu and Paryag Sahu. 4. The appellant, in his examination, had denied the prosecution allegation and stated that he was innocent. His defence plea was about false implication at the instance of his enemies, namely, Harkhori Sahu Peyari Sahu and Paryag Sahu. He had not examined any witness in his defence. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, and going through the records, merit is found in this appeal. 6. P. W. 5 was the only eyewitness in the case. She had, as stated above, not supported the prosecution version. She had maintained that she had not gone to the spot at any time. Her husband (P. W. 1) too had disowned the prosecution case. He and P. W. 2 had deposed that they knew nothing about the occurence. That was in spite of the fact that P. W. 2 is the nephew of P. W. 4. Same was the case with P. W. 3. She too had denied having told about the occurrence of anybody, muchless by P. W. 8. As per F. I. R., P. W. 3 was amongst the first to be told about the crime by P. W. 8. But P. W. 3 had deposed that she knew nothing in that behalf. To the same effect is the evidence of P. W. 7. He too had stated about knowing nothing regarding the occurrence. 7. Then as regard evidence of P. W. 6 and her father P. W. 4, the same also does not inspire confidence. P. W. 4 had allegedly received information about the occurrence from his nephew (P. W. 2). Instead of corroborating P. W. 4, P. W. 2 had contradicted his version about conveying anything about the occurrence to him. P. W. 4 had, as deposed by him, returned to the village four days after the alleged occurrence. Then admission of P. W. 8 that the enemies of the appellant, namely, Peyari Sahu, Harkhori Sahu and Paryag Sahu had produced her before the police for making statement, and further that they had asked her to depose against the appellant at trial, has highly probabilised the defence suggestion about the implication of the appellant at their instance. In fact, P. W. 8 does not appear to be knowing the name of the appellant even. She had described him as Ram Shanker at trial. 8. In fact, P. W. 8 does not appear to be knowing the name of the appellant even. She had described him as Ram Shanker at trial. 8. The prosecution allegation was with respect to committing rape by the appellant upon P. W. 8. The latter was subjected to medical examination. However, the doctor, who had examined her, was not examined by the prosecution. Even his report was not produced at trial. In the given circumstances, learned Counsel for the appellant is right in submitting for drawing an adverse presumption against the prosecution. Further, even the Investigation Officer was not examined at trial. He was a material witness, and his non-examination has seriously prejudiced the defence case. Above all, there was a delay of about ai month in reporting the matter to the police, for which no reasonable explanation is forthcoming. Undoubtedly, the conviction of the appellant in the case has been recorded on insufficient grounds. 9. For reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside, and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds.