JUDGMENT 1. -This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8.1.1996 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Sri ganganagar in Sessions case No. 54/94 whereby the appellant, Baldeo Singh was convicted under section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to further undergo one month S.I. and Smt. Reshama on conviction under section 366 IPC has been sentenced to undergo six months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to further undergo 7 days S.I. 2. The facts of the case are that Smt. Kamla wife of Shankarlal aged 20 resident of Daulatpura submitted an oral report that she was washing cloths at about 12 noon on 21.3.1993 in her house. The appellant No. 2 Reshama called her in her house. When she Went there, Smt. Reshma asked her to go inside the Kotha. She went in the Kotha where the appellant No. 1 Baldeo Singh was standing behind the doors who caught her and fell her on the cot. He put her hand on her mouth to prevent her from crying and the accused appellant No. 1 Baldeo Singh committed rape. Thereafter Reshama asked her to go back by jumping over the wall and she accordingly came to her house. She told about the incident to her husband. Her husband told about the incident to Shopat Pandit Surjaram and other persons of his caste. She and her husband approached Mahesh Budhania and went to Ex. Sarpanch Devilal who advised them to lodged the report. Hence oral report was made by Smt. Kamla on 21.5.1992 at 9.00 p.m. which was taken down in writing and a case under section 376 and Section 3(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. On completing the trial the impugned judgment was delivered against the appellants as mentioned above. The 'Salwar' and 'Jumper' of Smt. Kamla were seized and sealed on 22.3.1992 and were duly sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Human semen was detected on Salwar and vaginal slides. Semen was not detected on jumper. Human semen was also detected on 'kachchha' also recovered in consequence of the information furnished by appellant Baldeo Singh under section 27 of Evidence Act on 27.3.1992. Smt. Kamla was medically examined on 22.3.1992. Human semen was detected on Salwar and vaginal slides. Semen was not detected on jumper. Human semen was also detected on 'kachchha' also recovered in consequence of the information furnished by appellant Baldeo Singh under section 27 of Evidence Act on 27.3.1992. Smt. Kamla was medically examined on 22.3.1992. Hymen was old torn there were no injury on her person. No definite opinion could be given about the recent sexual intercourse. Appellant Baldeo Singh was also medically examined on 25.3.1992 and there was nothing to suggest that he could not perform sexual intercourse. 3. Learned trial Court on examining the oral and documentary evidence on record found reliable statements of prosecutrix Smt. Kamla PW 1 and Shankar her husband PW 2 further corroborated by Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex. P/7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there is not an iota of evidence to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that there are glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of prosecutrix Smt. Kamla PW 1 and her husband Shankar PW 2. The prosecutrix has made vast improvement about the facts of the alleged incident and therefore her statement is wholly untrustworthy. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the conviction of the appellants cannot be passed on the basis of the lone testimony of the prosecutrix without corroboration by medical evidence. She does not found corroboration for medical evidence. It is contended about the FSL report showing presence of human semen on 'Salwar' and 'Kachchha' that it has no evidence value in the facts and circumstances of the case as prosecutrix as well the accused are married persons and the presence of human semen cannot be connected with the alleged offence because there is every reasonable probability of the presence of human semen due to cohabitation with their spouse. It is further contended that even if the FSL report is considered then it merely leads to inference about sexual intercourse but not use of force i.e. offence of rape as alleged by the prosecutrix. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that there is no need for any corroboration of the statement of prosecutrix for recording conviction under section 376 IPC and the learned trial Court has rightly relied upon her statement. The prosecutrix found corroboration from the Forensic Science Laboratory report. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that there is no need for any corroboration of the statement of prosecutrix for recording conviction under section 376 IPC and the learned trial Court has rightly relied upon her statement. The prosecutrix found corroboration from the Forensic Science Laboratory report. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the sole testimony of Smt. Kamla is of sterling worth. 4. I have perused the statement of Smt. Kamla PW 1 who has deposed that appellant No. 2 Reshma is her aunt in relation. At about 12 noon when she was washing cloths Reshma came to her and took her to her house which is on the opposite side. She pushed her inside the Kotha and bolted it from outside. The accused Baldeo Singh caught her, put his hand on her mouth and threatened her to kill if she tried to raise a cry. He forcibly threw her on cot and committed tape. She became unconscious and could not raise a cry. When she was left by the accused she came out of the Kotha, accused Reshma helped her to jump over the wall and she came to her house. She has further stated that she went to call her husband and told him about this incident. Then she has stated that they narrated the incident to Sarpanch Devilal, Mahesh Budhania and other persons. It is revealed from the cross-examination that the name of the accused was told to her by her husband when she told her husband that the person committed the rape was the same who often used to come at the house of Reshama. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that there are serious and material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of prosecutrix. She did not state in the report Ex. P/1 and in the statement under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code Ex. D/2 that accused Reshma had pushed her into Kotha and bolted it from outside. This fact also does not find place in Ex. P/1 and statement Ex. D/2 that she became unconscious. She does not remember whether her bangles broke or not though she was wearing the bangles. She further admits that she came back to her house by scaling down the wall of the Nohra of Ranjeetsingh. Reshma asked her to go by scaling down the said wall. P/1 and statement Ex. D/2 that she became unconscious. She does not remember whether her bangles broke or not though she was wearing the bangles. She further admits that she came back to her house by scaling down the wall of the Nohra of Ranjeetsingh. Reshma asked her to go by scaling down the said wall. She climbed the wall of small height and thereafter the wall of Nohra of Ranjeetsingh. She did not raise a cry after the incident also. She has denied the suggestion that she went of her own will to the house of Reshma for sexual intercourse with Baldeo Singh but now alleging commission of rape because Sukha her sister's son had seen her coming from the alleged place of occurrence. Kamia PW 1 has given explanation about glaring contradiction, omission from the FIR police statement that she has deposed all the above facts but I am of the view that her explanation is not satisfactory and does not appear to me at all plausible. The prosecutrix has made material improvements about overt act done by the appellants and the manner in which incident is alleged have taken place in the FIR. I am of the opinion that the statement of the prosecutrix Smt. Kamla discussed above is not trustworthy and it is completely unsafe to rely her statement to record the conviction of the appellants. It is clearly established from her statement that Smt. Reshma is her aunt in distant relation and she went to her house of her own free will. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to hold that the appellant Smt. Reshma induced or compelled the prosecutrix to go to her house. 5. It is correct that the sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to record the conviction for an offence under section 376 IPC. Corroboration is not necessary in each and every case. Learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922 . As already discussed above in the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix Smt. Kamla does not inspire confidence and looking to the serious and material contradictions concerning the alleged commission of the offence. Her statement is wholly unreliable. I am of the view that the learned trial Court erred in relying upon her testimony. As already discussed above in the present case, the testimony of the prosecutrix Smt. Kamla does not inspire confidence and looking to the serious and material contradictions concerning the alleged commission of the offence. Her statement is wholly unreliable. I am of the view that the learned trial Court erred in relying upon her testimony. The similar contradictions and improvements are also present in the statement of her husband Shankar PW 2 vis-a-vis his statement under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code about the material particulars of the incident. In this way, the statement of prosecutrix cannot be treated as corroborated by another unreliable witness. In the above circumstances, the decision given in the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (supra) does not help the prosecution case. I am clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. They deserve to be acquitted by accepting this appeal on setting aside the impugned judgment. 6. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and sentence date. 8.1.1996 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar is hereby set aside. The appellant Baldeo Singh is acquitted of the offence under section 376 IPC and appellant Smt. Reshma is hereby acquitted of the offence under section 366 IPC. The appellant Baldeo Singh be released from jail if not required in any other case. The personal bond and surety bond of appellant of Smt. Reshma are discharged.Appeal allowed. *******