Honble PALSHIKAR, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.4.94 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, Camp at Srikaranpur, in Sessions Case No. 72/94. The learned Judge has, by the said order, convicted the appellant u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code for seven years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, further to undergo three months simple imprisonment. (2). On 30th August 92, First information Report was lodged by Smt. Krishna Bai Stating that she, along with her Jethani went in the field of Vijay Pal for cutting grass in the evening of 27.8.92 at about 5.00 p.m. When she was taking the grass, both accused persons Mangiram and Krishnalal came there, caught hold of her and took her to the adjoining field. There Krishnalal caught her by arms and Mangiram committed rape on her. It is stated in the First information Report that the prosecutrix was dragged in the field of cotton and held by Krishnalal who gagged her mouth by hand and Mangiram committed the rape. She then cried for help and her Jethani went to call her father-in-law. On their arrival, they challenged the accused, who then ran away, leaving the prosecutrix and while going away, snatched the golden ear rings from the ears of the prosecutrix. On the basis of this First Information Report, the investigation was taken up and after recording statements of several witnesses, challan was put up and in due course, the accused were prosecuted. (3). The learned Judge accepted the testimony of the prosecutrix. He disbelieved the prosecution evidence insofar as accused Krishnalal is concerned. The claim of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses that she was held by arms by Krishnalal and her mouth was shut by Krishnalal thus aiding in getting commission of rape by the accused Mangiram, the learned Judge found that this part of the evidence is unbelievable. He, therefore, proceeded to acquit accused Krishnalal of offence u/ss 354 and 376/114 of the Penal Code. (4). In so far as the accused Mangiram was concerned, the learned Judge accepted the statement of the prosecutrix, found it to be supported by the testimony of the other witnesses. He, therefore, convicted the accused Mangiram as aforesaid, for seven years rigorous imprisonment. It is this order, which is impugned in the present appeal. (5). Mr. (4). In so far as the accused Mangiram was concerned, the learned Judge accepted the statement of the prosecutrix, found it to be supported by the testimony of the other witnesses. He, therefore, convicted the accused Mangiram as aforesaid, for seven years rigorous imprisonment. It is this order, which is impugned in the present appeal. (5). Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant accused, submits that the order of conviction is unsustainable in law. It is his contention that the learned Judge having discarded the testimony of the prosecutrix in relation to commission of any offence by Krishnalal, i.e. in relation to his holding her hands and gagging her mouth to enable Mangiram to commit rape on her, was wrong in accepting the remaining testimony. It was contended by the learned counsel that if this part is not believed by the learned Judge, then the conclusion appears to be that rape was committed by Mangiram without any assistance. It was contended by the learned counsel that such commission of rape is highly improbable in the present case. The prosecutrix is a young healthy woman of 22 years age and could have offered stiff resistance. It is true that inspite of resistance, rape can be committed but according to the learned counsel in such event it is of necessity that several injuries would be found on the person of the victim. In the present case such medical evidence is not forthcoming. (6). Then the learned counsel pointed out several discrepancies in the evidence of the witness relying on whom the learned Judge has recorded a finding of guilt. According to the learned counsel, the evidence does not inspire confidence. The contradictions are material. There are deliberate additions and omissions and the evidence is unbelievable. He, therefore, claimed re- appreciation of evidence and took me through the entire evidence to substantiate his contention. He pointed out the contradictions, which according to him are material and render the testimony of the witnesses unbelievable. (7). PW/1 is Bhagwandas who states that there was a Panchayat in the village on the complaint of the prosecutrix that the accused had committed rape on her and had stolen her earrings. In his cross-examination, he states that he did not see Krishna Bai in the Panchayat. This witness, therefore, only proves that there was a Panchayat held in the village. (8). In his cross-examination, he states that he did not see Krishna Bai in the Panchayat. This witness, therefore, only proves that there was a Panchayat held in the village. (8). PW/2 is Krishna Bai, prosecutrix. She has stated in her deposition that when she was cutting grass in the evening at 5.00 P.M. in the field of Vijay Pal, both the accused came, caught hold of her and dragged her to the cotton field nearby and fell her on the ground. Accused Krishnalal held her hands and shut her mouth. Accused Mangiram removed her Salwar and committed rape. He had forcible intercourse with the prosecutrix for about 5 minutes and then when Krishnalal removed his hands from her mouth she shouted, hearing which her Jethani Usha went to call her father-in-law and on their challenging, the accused persons ran away while running away, they snatched the earrings from her ears, her ear rings were of gold. It is, thus, unequivocally stated by this witness that she was forcibly confined to the ground by Krishnalal and Mangiram had forcible intercourse with her. She has deposed that her Salwar was removed and was thrown nearby. This witness appears to have omitted several material things while recording the First Information Report. In the First Information Report, there is no disclosure that her Salwar was removed by the accused and then rape was committed. It has not been stated by the witness that any injury was caused to her person in the process while she was being raped. It has been stated by the witness in the First Information Report that the accused had forcible intercourse with her. However, in her cross-examination, she claims ignorance about the meaning of the word intercourse. This reply, on the face of it, is unnatural. A married woman of 22 years, cannot be ignorant of this aspect of life. There are several other salient aspects which intrinsically create a serious doubt about the truthfulness of this witness. The witness is particular in stating the fact that she was thrown on the ground, she was held by one accused and the other accused committed rape. She has stated that her salwar was removed by the accused and thrown away. There are several other salient aspects which intrinsically create a serious doubt about the truthfulness of this witness. The witness is particular in stating the fact that she was thrown on the ground, she was held by one accused and the other accused committed rape. She has stated that her salwar was removed by the accused and thrown away. It is in her deposition that on the arrival of Basantaram and on being challenged by him, the accused ran away and while running away, snatched the earrings of the prosecutrix. It is naturally improbable that in such an event, after the assailants have fled, the prosecutrix would continue to remain uncovered. The witness has nowhere stated that she wore the Salwar immediately. Natural human conduct is such that the first reaction of the harassed woman would be to cover her body as soon as possible. The witness has admitted that the accused ran away on the arrival of Basantaram and yet the witness continued to be "haked till her jethani and father-in-law arrived on the scene. The unnatural conduct on the part of the woman creates serious doubt about her truthfulness. (9). The witness has admitted that the incident took place on 26th August 92 and the First Information Report was lodged on 30th August 92. The reason given by her for the delay in filing the First Information Report is that there was holding of Panchayat for two-three days. The witness does not state why. the Panchayat was held. The offence, if factually committed, was so grave and heinous that there was no need to call Panchayat. (10). Commenting on this aspect of the deposition, the learned counsel submitted that factually it appears to be a case of admitted theft, for which the family of the prosecutrix claimed damages in the Panchayat and having failed to receive any damages, have lodged a false complaint involving the accused in the offence of theft as also the offence of rape. He placed reliance on the evidence of PW/1 Bhagwandas who states that Panchayat Factually did take place. It is also admitted by the other witnesses that Panchayat has taken place. Even the prosecutrix has also admitted the holding of Panchayat. The holding of Panchayat, therefore, creates a reasonable possibility that factually the assault was with a view to commit theft. He placed reliance on the evidence of PW/1 Bhagwandas who states that Panchayat Factually did take place. It is also admitted by the other witnesses that Panchayat has taken place. Even the prosecutrix has also admitted the holding of Panchayat. The holding of Panchayat, therefore, creates a reasonable possibility that factually the assault was with a view to commit theft. It was spoiled and because there was no amicable solution to the attempted theft, that the First Information Report was lodged on 30th August. (11). A careful scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses also brings to the fore, certain material contradictions and creates doubt about the depositions of these witnesses being concocted. (12). PW/3 is Usha Bai, Jethani of the prosecutrix. She has generally corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix. She says that prosecutrix was cutting grass in the nearby field and she heard the shouts of the prosecutrix Krishna Bai and she ran to call her father-in-law who was working in the field nearby. Both of them came back to the cotton field and found that Krishna Bai was crying. Basanta Ram was present there and the prosecutrix Krishna Bai was naked. She had not worn Salwar and they saw the accused persons running away. The witness has deposed that she was told by Krishna Bai that accused Krishnalal gagged her mouth and caught her hands and accused Mangiram had forcible intercourse with her and while running away they snatched the ear-rings from her. If this statement of the witness is to be accepted, the result would be unnatural. No woman would continue to sit naked in presence of her grand father-in-law. No woman would seek help of her relations without first ascertaining as to why Krishna Bai was shouting. There are several contradictions in the deposition of this witness. (13). Witness Basanta Ram has stated that while he was returning from Ganganagar, near the field of Vijay Pal, heard the shouts of a Woman and when he went to the field he saw Krishna Bai without wearing the Salwar and Mangilal had thrown her to the ground and Krishnalal had caught hold of her hands and when the witness challenged them, they ran away. He has deposed that Salwar of Krishna Bai was lying 2-3 ft. away and she told him that while going the accused have snatched her ear-rings. He has deposed that Salwar of Krishna Bai was lying 2-3 ft. away and she told him that while going the accused have snatched her ear-rings. The part of earrings being snatched has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge. It is also improbable. Medical evidence does not support it. There is no injury on her ears nor is there any recovery of the earrings from any of the accused. The witness Basantaram has deposed that Usah Bai and his son Sewa Ram came after he arrived at the scene of offence. The testimony of Sewa Ram and Usha Bai that they saw the accused running away, therefore, becomes incorrect. Both Usha Bai and Sewa Ram have deposed that there were abrasions on the face of Krishna Bai. The medical examination does not corroborate this allegation. It will thus be seen that the depositions of these witnesses do not inspire confidence. It is hard to believe that the Jethani would leave to seek assistance of her father-in law without first ascertaining the calamity due to which Krishna Bai was shouting. It is improbable to believe that rape can be committed on an adult healthy woman, without corresponding injuries being caused to her person. The medical examination of this witness also does not corroborate her claim. Obviously the witness prosecutrix was habituated to intercourse. The doctor has deposed that the vagina admitted two fingures and was loose. The only complaint made by the witness was severe pain on touch. But even this statement appears to be incorrect for the reason that even if forcible intercourse has taken place, no pain exists in such situation for four days when the medical examination took place. Even if this aspect is accepted as correct, such pain can arise out of normal intercourse also and is, therefore, no circumstance which can be used against the accused. It is improbable that persons after committing rape would run away after committing robbery also. The learned Judge has rightly disbelieved the theory of robbery. (14). The crucial question which arises for consideration, in such circumstances is whether the prosecutrix could be believed in such circumstance where she has chosen to state a deliberate falsehood, namely, the snatching away of the ear-rings by the accused, while running away after committing rape. The learned Judge has rightly disbelieved the theory of robbery. (14). The crucial question which arises for consideration, in such circumstances is whether the prosecutrix could be believed in such circumstance where she has chosen to state a deliberate falsehood, namely, the snatching away of the ear-rings by the accused, while running away after committing rape. If the witness has chosen to fabricate the part of the story in relation to robbery, her testimony in relation to rape becomes unacceptable without due corroboration. No such corroboration is coming up in the present case. Neither Basanta Ram nor Usha Bai or Sewa Ram witnessed the physical assault and yet Basanta Ram states that he saw the prosecutrix being held by accused Krishnalal. But he has not deposed that he saw accused Mangilal doing anything. According to him, they ran away on his shouting. Similar is the deposition of Usha Bai and Sewa Ram who says that they saw the prosecutrix without her Salwar and the accused running away. Though all the three witnesses slate that they were told of ear-rings being robbed by accused Mangi Ram while running away. None of them deposes to have seen any injury to the ears of the witness. Ear- rings cannot be snatched without causing at least abrasion to the ear. Absence of any such injury, thus, disproves the claim made by these witnesses. There is, thus, no corroboration even to the fact of robbery by snatching ear-rings from the prosecutrix. The learned Judge has, for sound reasons, disbelieved the deposition of this witness in so far as accused Krishnalal is concerned and has acquitted him. (15). The net result is that the witnesses are disbelieved insofar as they depose to the participation of Krishnalal. The witnesses are disbelieved insofar as they depose to snatching of ear-rings by the accused but have been believed insofar as the rape in concerned. In my opinion, in such situation, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all), is liable to be applied in the present case. The witnesses have been found to have stated falsely that Krishnalal was involved in holding the hands of the prosecutrix and gagging her mouth. The witnesses have stated falsely that the accused committed robbery by snatching the ear-rings of the prosecutrix and consequently their statement that the accused committed rape is also likely to be false. The witnesses have been found to have stated falsely that Krishnalal was involved in holding the hands of the prosecutrix and gagging her mouth. The witnesses have stated falsely that the accused committed robbery by snatching the ear-rings of the prosecutrix and consequently their statement that the accused committed rape is also likely to be false. It certainly does not inspire confidence. There is no corroboration in such circumstances the conviction of the accused u/s 376 of the Penal Code appears to be incorrect. The learned Judge thus, erred in accepting part of the testimony of these witnesses while rejecting some other part. The entire testimony of the prosecutrix was liable to be rejected. There is, thus, no material evidence on record to warrant conviction of the accused u/s 376 of the Penal Code. I find the judgment of the learned Judge unsustainable in law. The same is, therefore, set aside. (16). In the result, the appeal is allowed. The accused is acquitted of the offence u/s 376. The accused-appellant Mangiram is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required for any other offence.