ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. Heard counsel for both the sides. 2. Special leave granted. The sole accused, in the case is the appellant, who was working as a Manager of Kalyan Plastic Industries in Karnataka. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal by way of special leave. 3. The prosecutrix, PW 1 was working as a sweeperess in the said factory. It is alleged that she was aged about 26 years and also married. She used to go to the factory every day at 7 a.m. and leave the same at 5.30 p.m. On February 17, 1984 at about 7 a.m. when she was sweeping in the factory, the accused who was already there, caught hold of her and dragged her towards a room. According to her, she tried to wriggle out but the accused pushed her down on a gunny bag. The accused removed her saree, petticoat and blouse and he also removed his clothes and had sexual intercourse for ten minutes against her wish and consent. She cried out and the accused ran away. She felt pain in her private part and blood was also coming out. She got up, dressed properly and went to her parents and complained to them. PW 13, the Police Officer, recorded her statement and sent her for medical examination. The doctor, PW 10 examined her. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. 4. The case mainly rested on the evidence of prosecutrix, PW 1. The way she narrated the whole occurrence appears to be highly doubtful and looks as no such rape has taken place. She says that she cried and tried to wriggle out but neither on her nor on the accused any injuries were found. She further gave so many details as to how the accused is said to have committed rape and she categorically stated that the accused had intercourse fully with her against her will. The doctor who examined her did not find any spermatozoa. The fact that no spermatozoa was found would go to show that no such occurrence had taken place. She further gave so many details as to how the accused is said to have committed rape and she categorically stated that the accused had intercourse fully with her against her will. The doctor who examined her did not find any spermatozoa. The fact that no spermatozoa was found would go to show that no such occurrence had taken place. The doctor, further admitted that he could not give exact opinion whether rape had taken place or not because of the absence of spermatozoa in the smear and since she was married woman for five years her hymen will not be intact. The accused was also examined by a doctor on the next day and doctor did not find any injury suggesting a forcible rape. We need not go into the fact whether it was a case of rape or consent. But we are not prepared to place any reliance on her evidence itself. It is true, that the courts below have accepted her evidence. But to satisfy ourselves we have examined her evidence minutely and the same is highly untrustworthy. In these circumstances we give benefit of doubt to the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the accused shall be released. 5. The order be communicated telegraphically to the authorities by April 6, 1993 (Tuesday). Appeal allowed.