JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 against the judgment and order dated January 14, 1993 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, convicted him therefore and instated of sentencing him forthwith to any kind of sentence released him under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of 2 years on execution of personal bond in the amount of Rs. 2,000/- with a surety in the like amount and for keeping peace and being of good behaviour during the aforesaid period of probation. 2. The relevant facts are:-That on September 8, 1989 at about 8.30 a.m. RW. 2, Man Singh lodged a written F.I.R. (Ex.R 3) with Police Station Laxmangarh alleging therein that on September 6, 1989 at about 8 p.m. when his wife P.W. 1 Smt. Vimla had gone out to respond to the call of nature and after easing herself was coming back, she was caught hold of from behind by the appellant in the lane, taken behind Bitoduas and was raped. It was further alleged that the incident was witnessed by P.W. 3 Shri Bapu and RW. 4 Banwari. It was also stated that on seeing the witnesses reaching, the appellant tried to run away but was caught hold of by them. However, the appellant latter on managed to get himself released from their hold and ran away after leaving his dhoti, a knife 1 rupee note and two bundles of Beediet behind him. On this report, RW. 9 Bharat Singh ASI, registered a case under Section 376 IPC against the appellant. After conducting the necessary investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted and on being committed to the Court of Session, he was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the charge under Section 376 IPC. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove the charge against the appellant. The appellant took no specific plea in his defence. He simply stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case out of enemity. No evidence in defence was produced. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution theory did not inspire confidence and was doubtful. The appellant took no specific plea in his defence. He simply stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case out of enemity. No evidence in defence was produced. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution theory did not inspire confidence and was doubtful. He further held that the prosecution case was full of lacunas and infirmities and the evidence led in support of the charge against the appellant was not wholly true and reliable. Even after holding so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the basis of the evidence produced, it would be proper and safe to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 354 IPC. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant accordingly. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehmently urged that the theory as put forth by the prosecution was totally unreliable and does not fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel pointed out that the FIR was lodged after a delay of two days and no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay was given. It was also pointed out that in the present case neither any marks or signs of the commission of the offence on the alleged place of occurrence were noticed by the Investigating Officer at the time of his inspection nor the cloths of the ravished lady which were stated to be stained with blood or semen were seized. No medical evidence was produced. The bodies of either the offender or of the victim showed to injuries. It was also submitted that material evidence was not produced, the alleged eye- witnesses did not support the prosecution case and the prosecutrix and her husband, who were examined at the trial were totally unreliable. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was a middle aged School Teacher and has fallen victim of village party politics. Reliance was placed on Jagmal Singh v. State (1980 Cr.L.R. 446) and Kanhyya v. State of Raj. (1989(2) RLR90] . 6. The learned Public Prosecutor not only supported the judgment and order under appeal but also submitted that in dealing with such cases the court must keep in mind the conditions prevailing in the society, particularly in our villages. Reliance was placed on Jagmal Singh v. State (1980 Cr.L.R. 446) and Kanhyya v. State of Raj. (1989(2) RLR90] . 6. The learned Public Prosecutor not only supported the judgment and order under appeal but also submitted that in dealing with such cases the court must keep in mind the conditions prevailing in the society, particularly in our villages. The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of M.P. reported in JT 1995(6) SC 437 and submitted that mere delay or immaterial or insignificant discrepancies in prosecution evidence should not lead to underserved acquittals in the cases of offences involving sexual assaults on women. At one stage, the learned Public Prosecutor even required this court to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and to convict and sentence him therefore even in the absence of the State appeal in that respect. 7. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me, I am of the opinion that once the learned Additional Sessions Judge had found the prosecution theory improbable, doubtful and unreliable and had rejected the material parts of the statements of the witnesses, he should not have relied upon the same evidence for finding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 354 IPC. Undoubtedly, it is well settled and there can be no dispute to the principles laid down in the cited cases that there is no rule or practice which requires the court to look for corroboration to the testimony of the revished lady. Conviction in the cases of sexual assaults against a lady may be based on her sold and single testimony provided such testimony is of strelling worth. Once the prosecutrix is found to be a truthful and reliable witness, conviction may be based on her sole testimony without requiring further corroboration. It is particularly also in the context of the socio-economic condition and values prevailing in our society. It may be true that nobody would ordinarily like to make such a false accusation involving the dignity and honour of a woman. However, at the same time, it shall have to be kept in mind that once such an accusation is made, it becomes very difficult to rebut the accusation. It may be true that nobody would ordinarily like to make such a false accusation involving the dignity and honour of a woman. However, at the same time, it shall have to be kept in mind that once such an accusation is made, it becomes very difficult to rebut the accusation. Since conviction in such a case may be based on the uncorroborated single testimony of the ravished lady, the facts and circumstances of the case must be closely examined and the testimony of the prosecutrix must be approached with great care and caution. If the facts of the given case do not inspire confidence in the theory advanced by the prosecution, conviction should not be ordered simply because the honour and dignity of a lady is involved in the case. The basis of conviction for a criminal offence is the guilty of the accused and not the harm caused to the other side. Unless the accused is held to be the author of the harm caused to that person, he cannot be convicted on the basis of the harm caused. 8. In the case of Karanail Singh (Supra), the prosecutrix was working in a factory where she had reported on duty in the morning of 28.8.1987 around 8 a.m. When she was working inside the factory another labour, by name Charan was also present. The accused and his companion Pyaru came to the factory premises asked Charan to fetch tea for them and on his departure the accused lifted the prosecutrix bodily and put her inside the machine room and committed rape on her. Pyaru was asked to keep a watch outside the factory. After accused had satisfied his lust and before Pyaru could take his turn on the prosecutrix, her husband, a Rikshaw Pullar reached there through the opening in the wall. The appellant and his companion Pyaru run away. A first Information Report was lodged. The prosecutrix was sent to the hospital for medical examination there Dr. S. Rajput examined her and noticed her Saya (petticot) bearing semen stains. The chemical analysis confirmed semen stains on the Saya. The prosecutrix had also narrated the incident to one Raja Multan, a co-labourer, soon after the occurrence. At the trial neither Raja Multan was examined nor Charan was produced. S. Rajput examined her and noticed her Saya (petticot) bearing semen stains. The chemical analysis confirmed semen stains on the Saya. The prosecutrix had also narrated the incident to one Raja Multan, a co-labourer, soon after the occurrence. At the trial neither Raja Multan was examined nor Charan was produced. In the course of investigation the chaddy of the accused which was having semen stains on it, had been seized, but the seizure of chaddy was not proved at the trial. It was on such facts that the learned counsel for the accused urged before their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the investigation left mut to the desired and the prosecution evidence did not carry the case beyond the area of doubt & suspicion. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the contention of the learned defence counsel and observed as under:- "A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undobutedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in case of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach In the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and on more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her.l If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or pratice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to the testimony short of corroboration required in the case of accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence." 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has heavily relied upon this case. Let us examine, if the facts in the present case are identical to those in the cited case. 10. RW. 1 Smt. Vimla is the ravished lady herself. She is about 20 years of age, as stated by her, though RW. 10 Dr. Harish, on radiological examination declared her age at 17 years only. This witness is also the informant of the incident to the police. She has stated that after having several meal to her husband she had gone out to ease herself and when she was returning and had reached the Bara of Chutan Chamar, the appellant came from behind and caught hold of her. She has further stated that the appellant showed him a knife and took her behind Bitodas where he laid himself upon her and then committed rape on her. She has further stated that when the appellant was committing rape on her, her husband RW. 2 Man Singh reached there. On seeing Man Singh approaching the appellant tried to run away, but Man Singh manged to catch hold of him. When Man Singh was carrying the appellant to his house RW. 3 Pappu and P.W. 4 Banwari met him on the way. On their query, Man Singh told them that the appellant had raped Smt. Vimla. 11. In the same continuation, it would be useful to take note of the statement of RW. 2 Man Singh. He stated that when his wife did not return after sufficient long time, he went in search of her. When he reached the Guam of Chutan Chamar, he heard the cries of a lady coming from the side of the Bitodas. Thereupon he reached the place of occurance. 2 Man Singh. He stated that when his wife did not return after sufficient long time, he went in search of her. When he reached the Guam of Chutan Chamar, he heard the cries of a lady coming from the side of the Bitodas. Thereupon he reached the place of occurance. There he saw that the appellant was lying upon his wife and committing rape on her. The witness has further stated that the appellant had placed his dhoti by his side. He was having a knife in one of his hands. The witness further stated that he caught hold of the appellant and separated him from his wife had asked him to accompany him to his house. The appellant allegedly followed his instructions. When the witness was taking the appellant with him to his house, Pappu and Banwari who were taking meals in their Tebaries on the way, asked him as to what had happened. The witness told them that the appellant had raped his wife. It was at that time that the appellant is stated to have managed to escape from his grip leaving behind him his dhoti, knife and Beedi bundles and one rupee note which were tide in the dhoti. 12. RW. 3 Pappu and P.W. 4 Banwari are the two witnesses who were cited as eye witnesses in the FIR but who were alleged to have met with Mansingh on the way when he was taking the appellant to his house. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Their statements are to the effect that they had seen Man Singh and the appellant quarrelling together. They have further stated that they did not inquire of them about the cause of the quarrel and Man Singh also did not complain that the appellant had raped his wife Vimla. It is thus evident that these two independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case at all. 13. The occurrence is stated to have taken place behind the Bitodas which are surrounded by inhabitated guadas. The site plan prepared by RW. 9 Bharat Singh and which has been marked as Exhibit-P-2 clearly shows that the place of occurrence is surrounded by the Chappars and Guadas of number of persons. That means that the offence of rape is alleged to have taken place at a place which was surrounded by houses. The site plan prepared by RW. 9 Bharat Singh and which has been marked as Exhibit-P-2 clearly shows that the place of occurrence is surrounded by the Chappars and Guadas of number of persons. That means that the offence of rape is alleged to have taken place at a place which was surrounded by houses. It is not the case of the prosecution that the occurrence of the chapars and guadas were not present at their respective chappars and Guadas. The time of the alleged offence was not such that the villagers would have gone to bed. Then it is the case of the prosecution itself that when Man Singh was taking the appellant with him to his house P.W. 3 Pappu and RW. 4 Banwari were taking their meals in their Tapries. That means that it was not the time of odd hours. The prosecution case further is that the appellant had caught hold of Smt. Vimla in the Gali which was going in front of the Chapars of Banwari and Chutan Chamar and then taken her just about 20 paces away from that place and raped her near Neem tree. Had such an occurrence taken place at such a time and place, these persons, besides others, would have certainly heard the alarm of the assaulted lady and would have rushed to her rescue. But curiously enough, nobody is stated to have arrived at the place of occurrence. The statements of Smt. Vimla and her husband Man Singh taken on their face value, do not inspire confidence. The FIR which was lodged on the 3rd day, it is not mentioned that Man Singh was an eye-witnesses. It is not believable that Man Singh would reach the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm coming from the size of Bitodas and by that time no other person from the locality would reach there. It is also unnatural that Man Singh would be able to catch hold of the appellant and the appellant would readily accompany him without making any efforts to run away. It would be totally an unnatural conduct of a person seen committing on attempting to commit rape on a woman. He would try to ran away on seeing anybody approaching the scene of occurrence. 14. There is also discrepancy over another material aspect of the case. It would be totally an unnatural conduct of a person seen committing on attempting to commit rape on a woman. He would try to ran away on seeing anybody approaching the scene of occurrence. 14. There is also discrepancy over another material aspect of the case. Whereas Smt. Vimla has stated that the appellant had left his Dhoti and knife on the place of occurrence, her husband PW. 2 Man Singh stated that those were left by the appellant with him when he made his escape good in the presence of Pappu and Banwari. It is thus evident that the prosecution story does not fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and is quite improbable and unnatural. The two witnesses namely the prosecutrix and her husband materially contradicted themselves on material aspect of the case and gave quite unreliable version. They improved over their statements at the trial and contradicted their earlier statements as given by them In the course of investigation. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected their testimonies as also the theory advanced by the prosecution. 15. The FIR was lodged on the 3rd day of the occurrence and there was no satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay. No person has come forward to corroborate Man Singh in his version that the villagers had asked him to get the matter settled in the village. The delay in lodging the FIR in the present Case further weakness the already weak case of the prosecution. 16. As stated above, neither the petticot which allegedly had the blood and semen-stains was produced at the trial nor any report from the chemical examiner was proved. No satisfactory explanation for not producing that evidence was given. The learned Sessions Judge has therefore, rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. 17. On the basis of the discussion made herein above, it may be concluded that RW. 1 Smt. Vimla and RW. 2 Shri Man Singh are unreliable witnesses. The version given by them was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge for holding the appellant guilty of the offence under section 376 IPC. 17. On the basis of the discussion made herein above, it may be concluded that RW. 1 Smt. Vimla and RW. 2 Shri Man Singh are unreliable witnesses. The version given by them was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge for holding the appellant guilty of the offence under section 376 IPC. Once the prosecution version was found improbable and suffering from inherant infirmity and inspired no confidence the appellant should not have been found guilty of a lesser offence on the basis of the same unreliable evidence which had been rejected, by the learned Sessions Judge for holding the appellant guilty for major offence with which he was charged. It is the prosecution theory as a whole which should inspire confidence for its acceptance. It the theory itself is found unbelievable for holding a person guilty of the major offence and is rejected as such, the same theory cannot be made the basis for holding that person guilty of a minor offence. The prosecution case is to be examined in its entirety. If the foundational facts are held to be entirely. If the foundational facts are held to be unreliable, the structure built on such facts cannot stand. 18. In the result, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the commission of the offence under Section 354 IPC by the appellant. The appellant is, therefore, acquitted of the said offence. The security bonds, furnished by him are hereby cancelled. The appellant be released forthwith, if not reported in any other case.Appeal is allowed.Application allowed. *******