JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. - The accused/appellant in this Criminal Appeal questions the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 31-3-1989 for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (a) (iii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year. The accused/appellant Baburao S/o Ramdas Padgil alongwith one Triveni S/o Vijay Shankar Shukla were charged by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 16- 2-1-89 to the effect that the accused persons being Police Officers of Police Station Ballarsha in furtherance of their common intention on or about, between the night of 19- 2-86 and 20-2-86 at Laxmi Lodge Cotton Market, Nagpur in room No.1 committed rape on Kumari Suman D/o Punjaram Girde, aged about 16 years a female minor in their custody against her will and without her consent and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(iii) and Section 376(2)(g). 2. In short, the prosecution story during the trial was that Prosecutrix Ku. Suman (P.W. 3) was having love affairs with one Shaikh Babu. On 17-2-1986, P.W. 3 "Ku. Sumar and Shaikh Babu left the place of their residence viz. Jani and first came to Nagpur and from there went to Yavatmal and next Morl1ing on 8-2-1986 both of them went to Dhamangaon and from Dhamangaon to Wardha and from Waroha back to Dhamangaon and from Dhamangaon booked tickets for Kajipeth on their way to Kajipeth, when the train haulted at Ballarsha, two Police Constables entered the Companrnent and askea. them about the tickets and both Suman (P.W. 3) and Shaikh Babu were taken to Ballarsha Police Station. During that night they stayed at Police Station and next day two Constables were deputed for reaching P.W. 3, Suman and Shaikh Babu to Hinganghat Police Station. These two Police Constables were the present accused/appellant Baburao Ramdas Padgil and another accused Triveni. Both the accused persons brought P.W. 3 Suman and Shaikh Babu to Nagpur in the night of 19-2-1986 and all of them stayed at Laxmi Loge, Cotton Market, Nagpur. During the night, the accused No; 1 Baburao Ramdas Padgil committed rape on P.W. 3 Suman and thereafter another accused Triveni committed rape on P.W. 3 Suman. Both the accused persons brought P.W. 3 Suman and Shaikh Babu to Nagpur in the night of 19-2-1986 and all of them stayed at Laxmi Loge, Cotton Market, Nagpur. During the night, the accused No; 1 Baburao Ramdas Padgil committed rape on P.W. 3 Suman and thereafter another accused Triveni committed rape on P.W. 3 Suman. In the morning of 20-2-1986, the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman as well as Shaikh Babu were brought to Hinganghat and from Hinganghat to Jam and since no Police Officer was present at Police Chowki Jam, they were again brought to Hinganghat. Since P.W. 3 Suman left her house on 17-2-1986 without intimating her parents and she did not return the home even in the night, her father (P.W. 1) Punjaram lodged First Information Report against Shaikh Babu and the said offence was registered at Police Station Hinganghat vide Crime No. 45 of 1986 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Since this offence was already registered on 20-2-1986 on her reaching Hinganghat; she was sent for medical examination at Narahr. P.W. 3 Suman was called for interrogation by the police at Hinganghaton 22.2.1986 and during interrogation, she disclosed the facts about rape committed on her by the accused/appellant Baburao Ramdas padgil and another accused Triveni and on the basis of that report. First Information report was registered on 22- 2-1986 at Police Station Hinganghat under Sections 376 and 34 I.P.C. After the registration of the First Information Report, the investigation commenced and the Investigating Officer prepared Spot Panchanama (Ex. 13) and seized clothes of accused Baburao vide Ex. 16, seized Register of the Lodge vide Ex. 14, Uniform of another accused Triveni by Ex. 15. The Prosecutrix PW-3 Suman was medically examined on 25-2-86 and so also the accused appellant Baburao as well as another accused Triveni were also medically examined on 25-2-1986. After conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet and the case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur and the accused/ appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(iii) and Section 376(2)(g) on 16-2-1989 along with another accused Triveni Vijay Shankar Shukla. The accused/appellant as well as another accused pleaded not guilty. After conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet and the case was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur and the accused/ appellants were charged for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(iii) and Section 376(2)(g) on 16-2-1989 along with another accused Triveni Vijay Shankar Shukla. The accused/appellant as well as another accused pleaded not guilty. The Prosecution in support of his case examined punjaram (P.W. 1) (Father of Prosecutrix Suman P.W. 3), Premsingh S70 Puransingh Thakur, P.W. 2, Suman, P.W. 3, Laxmibai W/o Punjaramji Girde (Mother of Prosecutrix) - P.W.4, Madhu S/o Kawadu Sahare. P.W. 5, Dr. Keshao S/o Maroti More, P.W. 6, Dr. Vivek S/o Dinkar Despande, P.W. 7, Raithan S/o , Mahadeorao Bhawan'e, P.W. 8, Manikrao S/o Baburao Chate, P.W-9, and Zamir Ahemad S/o Abdul Sattar, P.W.10. The documents referred 10 herein above were exhibited alongwith the documents. 3. The statements of the accused/appellant Baburao as well as another accused Triveni were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused; appellant Baburao also submitted written reply before the trial Court purported to be under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 28-3-1989 and he denied having committed any offence. In written reply submitted by the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C., he furnished explanation for bringing the prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman to Nagpur by stating that the girl told him that her parents might be at the residence of her maternal uncle at Nagpur and on that basis Suman was brought to Nagpur by him. 4. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur after recording the evidence, heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant Baburao as well as the learned Counsel for the other accused Triveni and found that the prosecution has proved that the accused/appellant committed rape on prosecutrix, P.W. 3, Suman and was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(a)(iii) of I.P.C. However, no offence was found by the trial Court against Triveni and he was acquitted of the offence charged by the State. By the Judgment dated 31-3-1989, as aforesaid the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant for an offence under Section 376(2)(a)(iii) I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, or in default to pay fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 5. By the Judgment dated 31-3-1989, as aforesaid the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant for an offence under Section 376(2)(a)(iii) I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, or in default to pay fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor at considerable length and perused the record with the assistance of the learned counsel. Mr. M.R. Daga, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant urged before us that the testimony of Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman was not reliable and far from being trust-worthy. The learned Counsel submitted that though according to the prosecution, the rape was committed on Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman in the intervening night of 19-2-1986 and 20-2-1986, but no report was lodged by her though she had come to Hinganghat Police Station on 20-2-1986 itself. According to Mr. M.R. Daga, not only that no report was lodged by Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman immediately after incident though she had come out of the clutches of the accused persons, but as a matter of fact, she did not lodge the report on her own and only on 22-2-1986, when she was called at Police Station Hinganghat for interrogation in relation to the offence lodged by her father against Shaikh Babu for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC, the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman for the first time narrated the incident of rape having committed on her in the intervening night of 19-2-1986 and 20-2-1986. According to Mr. M.R. Daga, the said case of rape was concocted by Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman to save her lover Shaikh Babu from the offence which was registered against him by her father. The learned Counsel for the accused/appellant also urged that the deposition of P.W. 3, Suman is not corroborated either by the medical evidence or by any other evidence on record. Mr. M.R. Daga would also urge that the Prosecution withheld the most important witness, namely, Shri Shaikh Babu, who according to the prosecution was present in the said room, where the offence was alleged to have been committed by the accused/appellant on Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman. Thus, Mr. Mr. M.R. Daga would also urge that the Prosecution withheld the most important witness, namely, Shri Shaikh Babu, who according to the prosecution was present in the said room, where the offence was alleged to have been committed by the accused/appellant on Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman. Thus, Mr. M.R. Daga, submitted that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated and the conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. 6. Opposing the submissions of Mr. M.R. Daga, on the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimony of Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman is reliable and there was no reason for her to falsely implicate the accused/appellant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that, if the accused/ appellant had no intention to commit rape on Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman, there was no necessity of coming to Nagpur and the fact that the accused appellant and one Shri Triveni brought Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman and her lover Shaikh Babu to Nagpur though the accused/appellant was required by His Officer to reach the Prosecutrix P.W.3 Suman to Hinganghat would show that the accused/appellant had intention to commit rape on P.W. 3 after bringing her to Nagpur. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that Shaikh Babu could not have been examined since he himself was accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that since the deposition of P.W. 3 Suman is reliable, no further corroboration is required and the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(a)(ii) of I.R.C. and no inter- reference is called for in the sentence awarded by the trial Court .for the said offence. 7. Few facts are not disputed and matter are clearly spelt out from the prosecution evidence and these facts are that on 17-2-1986, the Prosecutrix, P.W. 3 Suman left her parents house at Jam along with one Shaikh Babu since both of them were in love and they wanted to marry each other. Shaikh Babu belongs to other community and therefore, the Prosecutrix, P.W. 3 Suman had decided to run away and marry at some other place. Shaikh Babu belongs to other community and therefore, the Prosecutrix, P.W. 3 Suman had decided to run away and marry at some other place. By the evening of 17-2-1986 when Prosecutrix P. W. 3 Suman did not reach home, her father (P.W. 1) Punjaram lodged the, report at Police Station Hinganghat against Shaikh Babu and an offence was registered vide Crime No. 45/86 against Shri Shaikh Babu under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. On the basis of the said offence registered at Police Station Hinganghat, on 18-21986, the Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman and Shaikh Babu who were found at Ballarsha were kept at police station during night and in the morning directed by P.W. 8, Raithan Mahadeorao Bha- wane, A.S.I. for reaching them to Hinganghat and for that purpose the accused/appellant Baburao. Ramdas Padgil and another accused were deputed and they were asked to reach the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman to Police Station Hinganghat or to her parents. From Ballarsha, the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman and Shri Shaikh Babu were brought to Hinganghat by the accused/appellant and Triveni and from there they were brought to Nagpur. According to the accused/appellant, Prosecutrix P.W.3 Suman was brought to Nagpur since she told that her parents may be at her maternal uncle's residence at Nagpur. In the night of 19-21986, the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman, Shaikh Babu, the accused/appellant and Triveni stayed at Laxmi Lodge, Cotton Market, Nagpur. On 20-21986, the Prosecutrix was brought to Hinganghat and on that very day, Prosecutrix; P.W. 3 Suman was sent for medical examination to Wardha. Thereafter and on 21-2-1986, the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman stayed at her parents place at Jam and on 22-2-1986, she was summoned by the Police for interrogation in connection with the crime registered against Shaikh Babu at the instance of her fatter P.W. 1, Punjaram. Thereafter and on 21-2-1986, the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman stayed at her parents place at Jam and on 22-2-1986, she was summoned by the Police for interrogation in connection with the crime registered against Shaikh Babu at the instance of her fatter P.W. 1, Punjaram. During interrogation on 22-2-1986, the Prosecutrix for the first time disclosed having been raped by the accused/appellant Baburao Ramdas Padgil and one Triveni at the Laxmi Lodge at Nagpur in the intervening night of 19-2-1986 and 20-2-1986 and on the basis of that report, an offence was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. Though P.W. 3 Suman in her deposition stated having been subjected to rape by accused/appellant Baburao Ramdas Padgil as well as another accused Triveni in the intervening night of 19-2-1986 and 20,-2-1986, the trial Court itself has not found the deposition of Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman reliable and trust-worthy to the extent she involved Triveni. 8. We have also minutely and carefully scanned the testimony of P.W. 3 Suman and the attending circumstances hereinabove pointed out. According to the Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman she was subjected to sexual inter-course by the accused/appellant Baburao forcibly without her consent in the intervening night of 19-2-86 and 20-2-86 at about 12.00 or 12.30. She deposed that at that time, she did not know whether Shaikh Babu and another accused Triveni who were in the room were asleep or not, but she heard their whispering. She also deposed that Shaikh Babu then came to her cot and asked her what had happened and she told him that accused/appellant Baburao had committed sexual intercourse with her. According to the deposition of P.W. 1 Punjaram (Father of Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman), on 20-2-1986, her daughter Suman was brought to Hinganghat and she was sent for Medical Examination at Wardha on that date. However, Prosecution has not placed on record, her Medical Examination Report conducted on 20-2-1986. The Medical Examination Report of Prosecutrix P.W.3 Suman on 20-2-1986 at Wardha was very material piece of evidence, because immediately on the next day of the alleged offence she was medically examined. However, the said Medical Report has been withheld and there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the Medical Examination Report of P.W. 3 Suman conducted on 20-21986 at Wardha was not placed on record. However, the said Medical Report has been withheld and there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the Medical Examination Report of P.W. 3 Suman conducted on 20-21986 at Wardha was not placed on record. Though, Prosecutrix Suman (P.W. 3) reached Hinganghat on 20-2-1986, i.e. the next day of the alleged commission of offence of rape by the accused/appellant, she did not Lodge any report at Police Station Hinganghat on 20-2-1986 though that could have been done without any fear from the accused/appellant. Not only that, about the incident, P.W. 3 Suman did not disclose anything to her father or mother for two days at any point of time though her mother P.W. 4 Laxmibai asked her about her whereabouts for last 2-3 days since 17.2.1986. The Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman even did not lodge the First Information Report on her own of the forcible sexual inter-course committed on her without her consent by the accused/appellant. It was only on 22-2-1986 when the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman was interrogated by the Police at Hinganghat in connection with the Crime No. 45 of 1986 registered at Police Station Hinganghat against Shaikh Babu, during her interrogation she narrated the incident of It is highly unnatural and seems improbable that, if the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman was subjected to rape in the intervening night of 19-2-1986 and 20-2-1986, she would not disclose the incident to her father or mother as soon as she met them P.W. 4 Laxmibai, mother of Prosecutrix has clearly deposed in her chief testimony that she made enquiry from Suman as where she had been for 2 to 3 days, but she did not give any reply. Non-disclosure of the incident of rape by the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman for two days to her mother despite enquiry being made by her mother creats lots of doubt and suspicion about the truthfulness of the version of Prosecutrix about rape. As indicated above on the next day of the alleged incident of rape Prosecutrix was medically examined at Wardha and the said Medical Report has not been produced by the Prosecution which could have thrown a great deal of light about the alleged incident. As indicated above on the next day of the alleged incident of rape Prosecutrix was medically examined at Wardha and the said Medical Report has not been produced by the Prosecution which could have thrown a great deal of light about the alleged incident. Further, the Prosecution has also not examined Shaikh Babu, who admittedly was accompanying the Prosecutrix P.W.3 Suman the though of the period from 172-198{j to 20-2-1986 and was in the same room with Prosecutrix P.W. 3, Suman where the rape is alleged to have been committed by the accused! appellant. Rather Prosecutrix, P.W. 3 Suman has testified that at the time of the incident, she noted the whispering between Shaikh Babu and the other accused Triveni and immediately thereafter she told Shaikh Babu about the forcible sexual intercourse having been committed by the accused/appellant. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that Shaikh Babu could not have been examined as witness since he was accused himself. Shaikh Babu was not accused in the present crime and merely because he happened to be an accused in Crime No. 45 of 86 registered at Police Station Hinganghat, it cannot be said that his evidence could not have been recorded. A pointed out earlier, there was no immediate disclosure of the incident by the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman either to the Police at Hinganghat on 20-2-1986, nor to her father and mother. It is also not disputed that at the time when the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman was interrogated by the Police at Hinganghat on 22.2.1986, Shaikh Babu was already arrested in Crime No. 45 of 86 registered' against Shaikh Babu by P.W. 1 Punjamm (father of Prosecutrix P.W.3 Suman) and it was only during that interrogation on 22.2.1986 that P.W. 3 Suman came out with the case of rape against her by the accused/appellant and the other accused. In this, background, there appears some substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused/ appellant that to save Shaikh Babu, who was already arrested in Crime No. 45 of 86, that the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman set out a false case of rape against the accused/appellant and the other accused Triveni who was also Police official. 9. In this, background, there appears some substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused/ appellant that to save Shaikh Babu, who was already arrested in Crime No. 45 of 86, that the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman set out a false case of rape against the accused/appellant and the other accused Triveni who was also Police official. 9. Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman was medically examined for the second time on 25-2-1986 and only that Medical Report has been placed on record and the said Medical Report does not throw any light about the rape having been committed on Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman. According to the deposition of P.W. 3, the Jangya which she was wearing at the time of the commission of crime by the accused/appellant, had blood stains on it and her clothes were seized by the Hinganghat Police Station. However, the said clothes including Jangya were not sent for chemical analysis 3rd hence there is/no chemical analyser's report to that effect. The deposition of P.W. 1, Punjaram (father of the Prosecutrix P. W. 3 Suman) as well as the testimony of P.W. 4 Laxmibai (Mother of the Prosecutrix P.W. 3 Suman) does not corporate the testimony of prosecutrix. It is not that in every case of rape the testimony of Prosecutrix is required to be corroborated and in the absence of corroboration, the testimony of Prosecutrix could not be relied upon. However, in the' facts and circumstances of the case, the deposition of Prosecutrix P. W. 3 Suman becomes highly doubtful and therefore, corroboration of testimony of appellant attains importance. All in all the deposition of Prosecutrix, P.W. 3 Suman by itself is not sufficient trustworthy and without blemish to connect the accused/appellant for the offence of rape as alleged by the Prosecution and in any case, the accused for the reasons stated above is entitled to benefit of doubt 10. In the result, this appeal, deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 31-3-1989 in Sessions Trifil No. 213/1986 is quashed and set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(a)(iii) of I.P.C. bail bonds are cancelled. In case, the accused/appellant has deposited the fine as directed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur under his judgment the same be refunded to him. Order accordingly. Appeal allowed.