J. G. CHITRE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is hereby challenging the correctness, propriety and legality of the order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Neemuch, in S. T. No. 113/87 by which he convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. of three years for an offence punishable under Section 366 I. P. C. and R. I. for seven years for an offence punishable under Section 376 I. P. C. with a direction that both the sentences to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case can be stated as under: The prosecutrix Leelabai reached at Neemuch Bus- stand in the mid night at about 12 in the night of 4. 6. 1987 and was going towards Jawharnagar Puliya through the Vegetable market road. As soon as she reached near the Puliya, the accused came there riding on a bicycle and caught both the hands of the prosecutrix Leelabai, tied them and. thereafter gagged her mouth by cloth. After that he made her to sit on his bicycle and took her to a place near the burial ground of Muslims and started committing rape on her. Leelabai told him that she was sensing the nature of call and because of that accused left her, then Leelabai went at some distance and sat, as the appellant was standing at some distance, Leelabai took the advantage of that situation and escaped. ( 3 ) SHE went to a village named Hingoriya and woke up person named Jagdish, whom she narrated the incident. The said Jagdish took her again on bicycle and or ought her to Neemuch and left her near Vijay Talkies. From that spot. She did not go to her home but went to the house of one Ramibai, whom she was treating like sister and stayed for two days. Through the husband of Ramibai, she sent a massage to her husband Bherulal, who came there find met her. The prosecutrix narrated the said story to her husband. Thereafter, both the husband and the wife went to Suraj Verma and told him the said incident. Suraj Verma saw injuries on the breast and chin of said Leelabai caused by the appellant Rajaram during the said incident. The prosecutrix narrated the said story to her husband. Thereafter, both the husband and the wife went to Suraj Verma and told him the said incident. Suraj Verma saw injuries on the breast and chin of said Leelabai caused by the appellant Rajaram during the said incident. Thereafter, she lodged her F. I. R and she was sent to medical examination to a lady doctor. ( 4 ) AFTER necessary investigation, the appellant was prosecuted in the Court of A. S. I. Neemuch, who after recording and appreciating the evidence in view of the arguments advanced before him by the parties, concluded that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 366 and, 376 I. P. C. and thereafter passed the order of conviction and sentence which is put to challenge in the present appeal. ( 5 ) ARGUMENTS advanced on behalf of the appellant and State were heard. ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the entire evidence of prosecutrix is unnatural, and shows deliberate concoction of a false story. He pointed out that the conduct of the prosecutrix is so unnatural that by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be believed. According to him, the evidence adduced by the prosecution through other witnesses does not corroborate the evidence of P. W. Leelabai, prosecutrix. However, said evidence falsifies it and expose it as unnatural. He argued that medical evidence also falsify the prosecutrix instead of lending corroboration. ( 7 ) THE learned Panel Advocate appearing for the State tried to justify the order of conviction and sentence by submitting that evidence of the prosecutrix itself be believed independently and it has been well corroborated also by the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. ( 8 ) THE law requires that the court should examine the evidence of the prosecutrix to find out whether it inspires confidence. If the evidence of the prosecutrix sounds to be natural, probable and believable, then there is no need of searching for corroboration to her evidence. Therefore, it was the duty of the learned Trial Judge to examine the evidence of the prosecutrix informing himself with the natural behaviour of ordinary person in the circumstances around which the prosecution case revolves but the learned Trial Judge has not done so. Therefore, it was the duty of the learned Trial Judge to examine the evidence of the prosecutrix informing himself with the natural behaviour of ordinary person in the circumstances around which the prosecution case revolves but the learned Trial Judge has not done so. The learned Trial Judge did not notice inherent infirmities in the story told by the prosecutrix and her evidence in the light of infirmities. ( 9 ) IT is important to note that when prosecutrix came to Neemuch bus-stand at about 12 mid night by bus, as according to her evidence, many persons got down like herself. When a woman was thus returning to her house alone in the odd hours of night she would have preferred to go with these persons to the road which was being frequented by some persons. Her evidence does not show that she made request to any of them to accompany her, atleast to the road which was frequented by persons. Normally and naturally, a woman, who was to go to her house at such odd hours of the night would have done so but P. W. Leelabai did not do so. Even her evidence does not show that case made such a request to those persons as those persons were to go to same side, Leelabai was required to go alone and passed by the side of Puliya, where, as per her story, the appellant Rajaram came by a bicycle and caught her. ( 10 ) IT is important to note at this juncture that the evidence, given by P. W. Leelabai about her visit to her material cousin Kalabai, prior to the incident is not above board. She has not clarified in acceptable way as to why she had gone to the house of Kalabai and as to why she was required to travel by bus at such odd hours of the night. It is important to note at this juncture that it is the suggestion of the appellant that Leelabai had gone out of her house for the purpose of residing with one Bhanwarial like his wife and for that purpose she attended Court (Notary people) for the purpose of swearing an affidavit. It is important to note at this juncture that it is the suggestion of the appellant that Leelabai had gone out of her house for the purpose of residing with one Bhanwarial like his wife and for that purpose she attended Court (Notary people) for the purpose of swearing an affidavit. It is the suggestion made on behalf of the appellant that Leelabai was required to return the said Bhanwarial, who was to keep her in his house, therefore, Leelabai was required to return to her home. When so was the suggestion, it was necessary for the prosecution to examine said Bhanwarial but the prosecution has not done so. Further, it is Important to note that the Investigating mechaniery has not seized the tickets of the bus or buses through which Leelabai had travelled upto Neemuch Bus stand in the said night as per story narrated by her. ( 11 ) THE story of Leelabai seems to be unnatural so far as the initial incident is concerned. She stated that when she was near the said Puliya, the appellant Rajaram came there, caught hands of the Leelabai, tied them, gagged her mouth by the cloth piece and thereafter made Leelabai to sit on his bicycle and thereafter took her to a place which was near burial ground of Muslims persons and by undressing her started committing sexual intercourse against the will of Leelabai and without consent. It is important to note that Leelabai stated in her evidence that before committing sexual intercourse with Leelabai, the appellant untied her hands, took put the cloth from her mouth and thereafter started committing sexual intercourse with her. ( 12 ) IT is important to note that a person who was interested in tying hands of Leelabai for the purpose of making her unable to resist him, would not untie her hands at the time of committing sexual intercourse with her, which was against her will and without her consent. Further, he would not take out the cloth piece from her mouth which was put by him for the purpose of gagging her mouth and making her unable to shout. Further, he would not take out the cloth piece from her mouth which was put by him for the purpose of gagging her mouth and making her unable to shout. He would take these precautions for the purpose of ensuring his safety and ensuring that Leelabai would not create any trouble, would not resist him and would not shout for the purpose of attracting attention of the persons which would be troublesome to him and would be obstacle in fulfilling his passion. ( 13 ) IT is pertinent to note that when, as per evidence of Leelabai, the appellant tied her hands, gagged her mouth and put her on his bicycle and started taking her against her will and without her consent towards some unknown spot, Leelabai would have, at least, made efforts to get down from the bicycle of the appellant. It was very much possible for her to do so because the appellant was driving the said bicycle and his both hands would have been engaged in holding the handle of the said bicycle and maintaining the balance of himself as well as Leelabai, who was made to sit on the said bicycle against her will. Had Leelabai suggested for resistance, it would have made the appellant difficult to drive the said bicycle and to carry Leelabai to spot as desired by him. Normally, a grown up woman like Leelabai would have made much such attempts and would have tried to get herself escaped but strangely Leelabai did not do so as it she was a consenting party to the said act of the appellant Rajaram. ( 14 ) FURTHER more, it is important to note that when the appellant was committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix Leelabai, as per her story, she told him that she started sensing call of nature and because of that the appellant released her and allowed to go at a distance and where she sat there. It has come in the evidence of P. W. Leelabai that he escaped from that spot by deceiving the appellant that way. This portion of the evidence of P. W. Leelabai and her story seems to be unnatural. Because, alleged act committed by the appellant Rajaram shows that he was mad with passion and, therefore, lifted Leelabai in the fashion mentioned above and took her to lonely place for the purpose of pacifying his lust. This portion of the evidence of P. W. Leelabai and her story seems to be unnatural. Because, alleged act committed by the appellant Rajaram shows that he was mad with passion and, therefore, lifted Leelabai in the fashion mentioned above and took her to lonely place for the purpose of pacifying his lust. When such a person was engaged in committing sexual intercourse with Leelabai, he would not release Leelabai on making her request to release her for answering call of nature. Further more, in such a condition a person mad with passion, would not allow Leelabai to escape. Further more, it is important to note, that the appellant would keep watch on her and in that case it would not have been easy for Leelabai to escape as she stated in her evidence. At least, the appellant would have chased Leelabai. ( 15 ) FURTHER story of Leelabai sounds to be unnatural again. According to evidence of Leelabai, she went to village Hingeriya where she awoke a person named Jagdish, who has been examined by the prosecution in this case as a witness. She told the incident to him and, as indicated by the evidence of Leelabai said Jagdish again made her to sit on his bicycle and took her in odd hours of night to Neemuch. It is pertinent to note here that Leelabai, who had bitter experience of such a ride on a bicycle would not have been ready and willing to sit on the bicycle of P. W. Jagdish in such odd hours of the night for going to Neemuch again, when P. W. Jagdish happened to be aged about23 years old. In all natural probability and in view of normal human conduct of a young woman, after such bitter experience, Leelabai would not have taken the risk of Main riding on the bicycle of the total stranger person, who was a young boy. ( 16 ) FURTHER, it is important to note, that Leelabai stated in her evidence that Jagdish left her near a talkies at Neemuch and thereafter she alone went walking to house of Ramibai, whom she was treating like a sister. Leelabai would have made request to Jagdish to reach her to the house of her husband which could have been a safer place for her. Leelabai would have made request to Jagdish to reach her to the house of her husband which could have been a safer place for her. She would not have preferred to walk again on lonely roads in the said odd hours of the night but Leelabai has not done so. Leelabai thereafter did not go the house of her husband but went to the house of Ramibai and she stayed there for two days and sent a message to her husband through the husband of P. W. Ramibai. Leelabai gave explanation in respect of this aspect of the prosecution case by saying that P. W. Jagdish was in hurry, therefore, he left her near the said talkies and not to the house of her husband. She told in her evidence that she was so afraid that she did not go the house of her husband but went to the house of Ramibai and thereafter sent a message to her husband through husband of P. W. Ramibai. Here it is important to note that when P. W. Leelabai was near her house and when P. W. Leelabai was in mood to prefer to give a message to her husband through husband of Ramibai and was in the mood of calling him to the house of Ramibai and thereafter narrated the incident to him, it would not have been proper for her to go to the house of her husband in the said night and to tell entire story to him as she did after two days. This conduct of Leelabai is definitely unnatural and far away from the normal behaviour of any woman like Leelabai. ( 17 ) IT is important to note that when she was in the house of Ramibai, she gave a false information to the husband of Ramibai in respect of the injury which was on her cheek. She did not tell him that the said injury was caused because of the biting on the check by the appellant. It is important to note here that when Leelabai preferred to give a message to her husband through the husband of Ramibai, it would not have been difficult for her to narrate the said incident to the husband of Ramibai as well as Ramibai but the evidence of Leelabai shows some thing else. It is important to note here that when Leelabai preferred to give a message to her husband through the husband of Ramibai, it would not have been difficult for her to narrate the said incident to the husband of Ramibai as well as Ramibai but the evidence of Leelabai shows some thing else. It is important to note here at this juncture that according to the evidence of Leelabai, she had sustained injuries on her waist, on her cheek, on her breast, on her hands, because of such improper activities on the part of the appellant. When she was at the house of her sister like Ramibai, she would have, in all probabilities, told the entire story to the husband of Ramibai and would have showed her cheek, her breast her wrist to Ramibai when she showed the injuries on her breast caused by the appellant to P. W. Suraj Verma. This aspect of behaviour of P. W. Leelabai cannot be ignored. ( 18 ) FURTHER, it is important to note that Leelabai called her husband to the house of P. W. Ramibai after two days through the husband of Ramibai and narrated the entire story to him. Thereafter, they went to one P. W. Suraj Verma whom Leelabai showed the injuries caused by the teeth of the appellant, as per her evidence. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of P. W. Suraj Verma shows that the husband of Leelabai, Bherulal, came to him and told to him the story told by Leelabai and thereupon Suraj Verma asked Bherulal to bring his wife to him for enabling him to help them and on such advice of P. W. Suraj Verma Bherulal brought his wife Leelabai to Suraj Verma, whom Leelabai showed her breast and injury on her cheek as well as on her wrist. Though it has come in the evidence of record that for some years Bherulal was working in the fire wood stall of P. W. Suraj Verma, he would not make Leelabai to open her breast before such a stranger, because it has not come in the evidence in record that Leelabai was very closely acquainted with Suraj Verma and was treating him with immense respect so as to find herself at comfort to exhibit her breast before him. It is very difficult to understand as to what was reason for P. W. Suraj Verma to see the breast of Leelabai for the purpose of verifying her story. What was the need of P. W. Leelabai to expose her breast before a strange person like Suraj Verma. Here at this juncture, it is important to note that the learned defence counsel submitted that this evidence of Leelabai shows that she was a woman of bad character, at least a woman of suspicious character and suspicious conduct. Submissions made by the learned defence counsel on this point cannot be totally ignored in view of such suspicious conduct of Leelabai and her strange evidence, when such evidence of Leelabai has not been corroborated by medical evidence and other evidence. ( 19 ) AS per evidence on record, after consulting Suraj Verma, Leclabai and her husband went to the Police Station and there they lodged F. I. R. and after the F. I. R. was lodged, Leelabai was sent for medical examination. It is the prosecution case that Leelabai was medically examined the Medical Officer examined Leelabai and noticed the injuries on her waist, cheeks and breast, which were caused by the appellant by his teeth but evidence of Dr. Smt. Kusum Maru does not show that way. She stated in her evidence that he did not notice injury mark created on body of Leelabai, she also did not notice injury on breast of Leelabai. Except four burn marks, on the back of Leelabai near her lumber region which were healing marks no injury was seen on body of Leelabai. It is to be noted here that when it was evidence of Leelabai that the appellant before committing sexual intercourse with her started biting her breast and therefore there were injuries on her breast which were shown to P. W. Suraj Verma, a stranger, Leelabai would have definitely shown such injuries to lady medical officer like Smt. Kusum Maru. In that event, said lady doctor would have noticed such injuries on her body and would have noted that way in medical certificate as well as in her evidence; She would have noted the injuries on the waist of Leelabai also. It is important to note here at this juncture that when a specific question was asked to Dr. In that event, said lady doctor would have noticed such injuries on her body and would have noted that way in medical certificate as well as in her evidence; She would have noted the injuries on the waist of Leelabai also. It is important to note here at this juncture that when a specific question was asked to Dr. Kusum Maru, she stated that had there been injuries caused by the appellant on cheek of Leelabai, she would have mentioned that way in medical certificate in connection with medical examination of prosecutrix Leelabai. ( 20 ) IT is very difficult to understand that when Leelabai was, as per her story, reached by P. W. Jagdish on his bicycle near a talkies at Neemuch she could have very well gone to her house alone or for that she would have made request to P. W. Jagdish to reach her the house of her husband who was so kind enough to take the trouble of taking her on bicycle from Hingeriya to Neemuch in the odd hours of said night. He would have definitely taken more trouble to make her reach to her husbandts house buy that is not so, so far as the prosecution story in this case shows. P. W. Leelabai has given out explanation, explaining the situation which is inconsistent with evidence given by P. W. Jagdish. According to P. W. Jagdish he left Leelabai near the said talkies because Leelabai told him to do so, P. W. Leelabai says that P. W. Jagdish was in hurry to return hence he left her near the said talkies at Neemuch. This is absolutely false because when P. W. Jagdish was ready to carry her from Hingeriya to Neemuch on his bicycle at such odd hours of night by awakening from sleep, he would not have left her there near the talkies exposing her to same sort of risk. A person who took her to Neemuch from Hingeriya by riding on the bicycle at odd hours of night would not run way by saying that he was in hurry to return. Had that been attitude of P. W. Jagdish he would not have carried Leelabai at all in the said night. Therefore, the conduct of Leelabai is so suspicious, unnatural that it is very difficult to place reliance on her evidence by itself. Had that been attitude of P. W. Jagdish he would not have carried Leelabai at all in the said night. Therefore, the conduct of Leelabai is so suspicious, unnatural that it is very difficult to place reliance on her evidence by itself. Therefore, if the Court tries to seek the corroboration for the purpose of assurances in respect of corroboration from other evidence on record, bit expenses P. W. Leelabai, prosecutrix as a total liar. It has come in the evidence of P. W. Jagdish that Leelabai did not awake him but he noticed Leelabai moving on the road in the said night in a petticoat and blouse on her body and, therefore he asked her as to why she was moving that way arid at the time Leelabai narrated him her story. On the contrary, Leelabai stated in her evidence that she went to village Hingeriya and awoke Jagdish who was sleeping. It has come in the evidence of P. W. Jagdish that mother and wife of Jagdish was already there in his house. It has also come in the evidence that a retired Headconstable named Ashraff was having his house near the house of Jagdish and he was also residing like Jagdish and other persons in the said vicinity. When so many persons were present at that time at Hingeriya, they would have asked Leelabai as to why she was there about hours of night and in such circumstances Leelabai would have narrated the story at the earliest opportunity but evidence of Leelabai does not show that way. The mother of Jagdish and his wife would have definitely asked Leelabai about the reason as to why she was there at such odd hours of the night and in such circumstances and in that event Leelabai would have told them, particularly about her story as both were women like her, but that is also not evidence given by Leelabai. ( 21 ) WHEN a retired Head-Constable like Ashraff was present there, he would have advised Jagdish to lodge a report and would have advised Leelabai to lodge report but very strangely the prosecution evidence shows that after leaving Leelabai near talkies, P. W. Jagdish returned from the place where the police station was situated. ( 21 ) WHEN a retired Head-Constable like Ashraff was present there, he would have advised Jagdish to lodge a report and would have advised Leelabai to lodge report but very strangely the prosecution evidence shows that after leaving Leelabai near talkies, P. W. Jagdish returned from the place where the police station was situated. He could have lodged a report in the said police station or atleast would have informed the police officer that such and such incident took place with prosecutrix Leelabai and he had brought her there. Atleast, he would have taken P. W. Leelabai to the said police station when Leelabai wanted to go alone. It is suspicious conduct of Leelabai causing unnaturalness and improbability in the prosecution evidence. At this juncture it is important to note that it is the suggestion of the defence that Leelabai wanted to stay with one Bhanwarlal as his wife, therefore, she left the house of her husband and as Bhanwarlal refused to keep her in his house, so Leelabai returned. A suggestion was also made to Leelabai that her husband was assaulting her after drinking. The evidence shows that Leelabai admitted that her husband was in the habit of drinking but denied the suggestion that he wasassaulting her under intoxication. It is pertinent to note that pro Kusum Maru noticed some burnt injuries which were healing on the back of P. W. Leelabai. It suggests that some body must have assaulted Leelabai and must have caused these burnt injuries by cigarette. It maybe possible that husband of Leelabai might have done so and therefore Leelabai had abandoned his house and decided to go to Bhanwarlal. It is also possible that said Bhanwarlal might have behaved in such a way with Leelabai and might have driven out her from his house and therefore she was required to return to her house in the night. It is also possible that Leelabai might have left the house of her husband in the hope of residing with said Bhanwarlal and when she found that Bhanwarlal was not ready to keep her in the house, she might have concocted a false story of herself being raped for the purpose of getting the sympathy from her husband and others and getting restoration in her husbandts house. At this juncture it is important to note that prior to the incident in question as per evidence, Leelabai was staying with her maternal cousin Kalabai whom her father was not permitting to come to his house. It is possible that by the help of said Kalabai she might have attempted to seek shelter in the house of said Bhanwarlal and when Bhanwarlal drove her out from his house, she might have concocted a false story for the purpose of getting sympathy of her husband and others. It is possible that she might have hatched up this story at the house of said Ramibai and might have called her husband to Ramibais house for getting his sympathy and restoration to his house. Otherwise, there is no reason as to why Leelabai did not go to her husbandts house when she was according to her own story, reached by P. W. Jagdish to Neemuch in the said night near her house. When she was so reached at Neemuch by P. W. Jagdish, instead of going to her house she went to the house of Ramibai. All these things are very difficult to be understood, if normal behaviour of any woman like Leelabai is kept in view. ( 22 ) IT is important to note that when Leelabai was intending to make a complaint to the police it is not understand as to why she had washed her petticoat? This conduct also shows that she wanted to have excuse of washing of petticoat for the purpose of making sure that in the chemical examination she should not be exposed in respect of said petticoat. It is very difficult to understand as to why Investigating Officer did not collect piece of bangles from the spot as per story narrated by P. W. Leelabai? ( 23 ) THUS, the learned trial Judge did not note all this important features of this case and, therefore, committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thereafter convicting the sentencing the appellant. ( 23 ) THUS, the learned trial Judge did not note all this important features of this case and, therefore, committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and thereafter convicting the sentencing the appellant. In view of the discussion made above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the order of conviction and sentence is not correct and legal, hence I allow this appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neemuch in S. T. No. 18/87. The appeal is hereby allowed. Bail bond furnished by the appellant stands discharged. No order in respect of disposal of the Muddemal articles. Appeal allowed. .