JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated April 30, 1994 of Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake in Sessions Case No. 23/93 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 376, I.P.C. to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. The facts of the case are that Crime No. 202/93 was registered under Section 376 Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Dudu on a written report made by one Sobhag Singh on 24.5.1993. After usual investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 354 and 376. IPC. The case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake. Charge under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was framed and the accused plead not guilty. Therefore, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and one witness was examined in defence. PW 10 Km. Amra is the prosecutrix. She was declared hostile as she specially stated that the accused- appellant was not the person, who had committed rape on her. She also stated that she recognised the person, who had committed the rape. Then, she was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and it appears that when she was again asked by the learned Public Prosecutor pointing out the accused, whether he had committed rape on her or not, she pointed out the accused to have committed rape on her. It may be stated that no identification parade was arranged by the investigation agency to get the accused identified by the prosecutrix. Then, again the witness stated: "when the police person committed rape on her, it was dark, and his face was not visible to him and as the accused was shown her today, therefore, she was telling that he is the accused," Such vacillating statement of her does not inspire any confidence on the basis of which conviction of the appellant can be upheld. PW 1 is Doctor, and he opined that the prosecutrix had sexual intercourse in the last 12 hours of her examination. About her age, he opined that she was 15 years old on the day of examination. PW2 is the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dudu and he only submitted the charge sheet in the case which was investigated by his predecessor S.H.O. Hanuman Sahai. About her age, he opined that she was 15 years old on the day of examination. PW2 is the Station House Officer, Police Station, Dudu and he only submitted the charge sheet in the case which was investigated by his predecessor S.H.O. Hanuman Sahai. PW 3 is a formal witness, who has taken 4 packets to F.S.L. for examination as a messenger. PW 4 Rameshwar has been declared hostile and he has not stated anything against the accused-appellant. Similarly, PW 5 was also declared hostile and he also has stated nothing against the appellant. PW 6 Bhanwar Lal, PW 7 Nand Kishore and PW 8 Ram Niwas were also declared hostile and they have also not stated anything against the appellant. PW 9 Sobhag Singh was motbir witness but he too was declared hostile. PW 11 is Shri Gajanand Soni and he has also not stated anything against the appellant and was also declared hostile. PW 12 is the S.H.O., who has registered and investigated the case. Thus, after the statement of prosecutrix PW 10 Km. Amra is discarded there remains no evidence against the appellant to connect him with the crime. Learned Trial Court committed serious error in convicting and sentencing the appellant on a vacillating statement of the prosecutrix as stated earlier. 3. In the absence of reliable and cogent evidence this Court has no option but to acquit the accused-appellant. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellant under Section 376 Indian Penal Code are set aside. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 376, IPC. He is in custody as such, he shall be released forth with if not wanted in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******