B. N. DASH, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the appellants have been convicted under Section 376 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for having committed tape on the prosecutrix (P. W. I) ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, that prosecution case is that in the night of 4/5. 11. 1989 while the prosecutrix (P. W. 1) was sleeping in her one roomed house along with her three years old son, she heard some body calling her son Mangulia. From the voice she could know that the person calling her son was accused-appellant Baya Tudu. Since it was dead of night, she did not unchain the door particularly when her husband was not there in the house, being away from the village. Sometime thereafter both the accused-appellants entered into the house through a hole created by them in the roof by removing some thatch. They put out the DIBRI which was burning and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. As a result of the sexual assault, there was bleeding injury in her private part and for all these her say a (M. U. I. V) became stained with blood and semen. After satisfying their sexual appetite the accused-appellants took to their heels through the front side by opening the Tati door. Immediately after the departure of the appellants, P. W. 1 raised hue and cry and on hearing her scream, her neighbour Anadi Behera (not examined) having arrived near her house, she disclosed the incident to him. In the following morning at 10. 30 A. M. she went to Baliapal Police Station covering a distance of about 7 K. Ms. and lodged the F. I. R. , Ext. 4. In course of investigation, the police seized the wearing saya of the prosecutrix and also the Kantha (M. O. I) and mat (M. Q. II) on which she was sleeping and sent the accused and the injured for medical examination. The saya (M. OIV) which was sent for chemical examination was found to have stained with human blood and semen and after completion of investigation charge-sheet having been placed and the case having been committed, both the accused appellants faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 376 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence was one of denial. No witness was, however, examined on behalf of the defence. No witness was, however, examined on behalf of the defence. ( 4 ) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses of whom P. W. 1 is the prosecutrix; P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the medical officers who respectively examined the prosecutrix and the appellants; P. W. 4 is the Scientific Officer of the District Forensic Science Laboratory, Balasore who made preliminary examination of the saya (M. OIV) and instructed the investigating officer to send the same for chemical examination and P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the police officers who took some part or other in the investigation of the case. On a consideration of the evidence on record of these witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as stated above. ( 5 ) MR. A. K. Acharya, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the learned Sessions Judge went completely wrong in relying upon the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. I particularly when there were telling circumstances which militate against the evidence of P. W. 1. The learned Standing Counsel, ion the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and order saying that the evidence of P. W. I. is free from any infirmity and can be safel acted upon. ( 6 ) IT appears that the learned Sessions Judge has believed the evidence of P. W. 1. holding that the same is corroborated by the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. 10) and the Serologists report (Ext. 10/1) and also the medical evidence showing the presence of a bruise, 1 c. m. x 1 c. m lx c. m. on the lateral side (left) of the genital canal. Let us now see how far such finding of the learned Sessions Judge is correct. According to the medical officer (P. W. 2), she examined the prosecutrix on 5. 11. 1989 at 4. 30 P. M. and the age of the injury she found was within 24 hourand. There is no evidence on record to show as to how long before the time of the alleged the husband of the prosecutrix was absent from the village. In the absence of such evidence, if the husband left the village in the evening of 1. 11. 1989, the possibility of such injury being caused by and act of the husband cannot be ruled out. In the absence of such evidence, if the husband left the village in the evening of 1. 11. 1989, the possibility of such injury being caused by and act of the husband cannot be ruled out. Further, it is admitted by the doctor examining P. W. I that the said injury can be self-inflicted. So, the presence injury in the genital canal of the prosecutrix cannot be conclusively attributcil to any act allegedly committed by the accused-appellants. In the report of the Chemical Examiner as well in the Serologists report, we find that there were blood stains and semen stains on the wearing saya of P. W. I, but there is no evidence that the semen found therein was of either of the appellants. In the absence of such evidence, the possibility of the semen being that of the husband of P. W. I cannot be ruled out. This is all the more so, when there is no evidence showing that the saya in question (M. O. IV) was either a new one or the same had been washed and dried prior to the alleged occurrence. So, the observation of the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of the prosecutrix has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner and of the Serologist is not correct. On the other hand, we find that Anadi Behera who, according to P. W. 1, arrived in her house on hearing her scream and before whom she disclosed the entire incident has not been examined and no explanation has been offered for such non-examination. It is highly pertinent to note that although according to the prosecutrix, the appellants made their ingress into the house through a hole created in the roof by them by removing some thatch, the 1. 0. (P. W. 5) has deposed in unequivocal terms that he did not mark any violence in the roof although he visited the spot on the day following the night of occurrence. It may also be noted that the 1. 0. has seized the Kantha on which the prosecutrix was sleeping in the night saying that the same had contained blood, but the saree was not seized. It may also be noted that the 1. 0. has seized the Kantha on which the prosecutrix was sleeping in the night saying that the same had contained blood, but the saree was not seized. If the Kantha had been stained with blood as stated in the seizure list, then the saree worn by the prosecutrix should have also contained blood stains but the same has not been seized. All these, in my opinion, are very telling circumstances which strongly militate against the version of the prosecutrix. It is very unfortunate that the learned Sessions Judge has not taken note of the evidence of the 1. 0. to the effect that during the spot visit he did not mark any violence in the roof of the house of the prosecutrix although according to the prosecutrix, as stated above, the accused-appellants made ingress into her house through a hole created by them in the roof. There is of course nothing to show that the prosecutrix or her husband had any axe to grind against the appellants giving rise to the finding of a serious case of false allegation, but the same cannot be a ground to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix when, as found above, the same is otherwise discredited by telling circumstances. Be that as it may, a doubt is created about the commission of the offence and as such, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants. ( 7 ) IN the result, the impugned judgment and order are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted and they be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed. .