Judgment P. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-12-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara whereby the accused-appellant Chirag Khan has been held guilty of the offence under S. 376, IPC and has been sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) THE incident is alleged to have occurred on 9-12-1994. It is alleged that P. W. 1 Mst. Lali had gone to the well of Balais at about 10. 00 a. m. in order to collect Thapariya. The agricultural land of the accused is situated nearby. The accused called her in order to lift the bundle of wood. Mst. Lali went to the accused but did not see any such bundle. She, therefore, asked the accused as to where the bundle was. Thereupon, the accused asked her to proceed further but she saw no such bundle anywhere. When she tried to return back, the accused pulled her and felled her down in a pit and committed rape on her after gagging her mouth by putting his own hand over her mouth. The accused then left the place of the occurrence after threatening her that if she disclosed this fact to anybody, he would kill her. Thereafter, Mst. Lali collected the wood and came to her house. She told about this incident to her sister Chandu (P. W. 6 ). Both the sisters then went to their mother P. W. 3, Sajjani and narrated the whole incident to her. Since on that day, there was a community dinner, her mother did not disclose this incident to anybody. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the First Information Report was lodged by Mst. Lali at Police Station, Shahpura, Bhilwara on 10-12-1994 at about 5-15 p. m. The Police registered a case under Ss. 376 and 354, IPC and started investigation. The site was inspected. The prosecutrix produced her Ghaghra, which was seized vide Memo Ex. P. 3. The Investigating Officer also got examined the accused and the prosecutrix by P. W. 7 Dr. Gyan Prakash. 376 and 354, IPC and started investigation. The site was inspected. The prosecutrix produced her Ghaghra, which was seized vide Memo Ex. P. 3. The Investigating Officer also got examined the accused and the prosecutrix by P. W. 7 Dr. Gyan Prakash. According to the Medical Officer, the age of the prosecutrix was between 19 to 21 years and he did not find any external injuries caused except an abrasion of the size of 1" x 2" at right cheek just below the angle of mouth. He did not find any further indication of rape. ( 4 ) AFTER investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura from where this case was committed for trial to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara who transferred this case for trial to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura. ( 5 ) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge under S. 376, IPC against the accused. The plea of the accused was recorded and he pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereupon, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in support of its case. In his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. , the accused-appellant denied to have committed any rape on Mst. Lali and alleged that he has been falsely implicated in the case. However, no defence evidence was produced. ( 6 ) AFTER appreciation of the evidence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that from the statement of Mst. Lali, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that she has been subjected to rape by the accused and her statement inspires confidence. Her statement was corroborated by P. W. 3, Sajjani and P. W. 6, Mst. Chandu. Since she was married lady habituated to sexual intercourse, there was no possibility of any external injury on her private part on account of the above rape committed by the accused. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. ( 7 ) I have heard Mr. Doongar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant and Mr. S. K. Vyas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 8 ) MR. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. ( 7 ) I have heard Mr. Doongar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant and Mr. S. K. Vyas, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 8 ) MR. Doongar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant referred to the prosecution evidence in detail and was highly critical to the statement of Mst. Lali. He has submitted that her statement is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and unnatural human conduct. In a case of rape, normally no eye-witness is available and thus the veracity of the prosecutrix is to be judged from her conduct and consistent circumstances. In the instant case, it appears that she was a consenting party but since the affair leaked, she, in her defence, made a complaint to her sister Chandu and eventually the FIR was lodged. He invited my attention to a very material fact that when Ghaghra was produced by the prosecutrix before the Investigating Officer, Memo Ex. P. 3 was prepared and in that Memo Ex. P. 3, the line marked G to H "ghaghra Dhoya Huwa Tha" was added afterwards by a different ink. This addition was made at another place marked I to J in the same Memo. If the prosecutrix was interested in prosecuting the appellant for the above offence, she could not have washed her Ghaghra and when she had washed her Ghaghra, the important evidence regarding detection of semen stains has been destroyed. According to the prosecutrix, she resisted the act of the accused with all force but the Doctor did not find any corresponding injury on her person. The offence was committed in the day and not in a lonely place and if she would have cried, someone would have reached there to render help to her. In her statement, she categorically admitted that after this incident she went to the well and washed her Ghaghra and after drying the same, she wore it. Thus her conduct after the alleged act is very unnatural as after this alleged incident she collected the wood and then went to her house. She reported the matter to her sister quite late. Her conduct, therefore, casts a serious doubt about this allegation made against the accused. Thus her conduct after the alleged act is very unnatural as after this alleged incident she collected the wood and then went to her house. She reported the matter to her sister quite late. Her conduct, therefore, casts a serious doubt about this allegation made against the accused. Even as per her statement, she must have received several external injuries in the shape of abrasions and contusions but the Medical Officer did not find any such external injuries except an insignificant abrasion. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. ( 10 ) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and scanned the prosecution evidence. In a case of rape the statement of prosecutrix is very important since in such cases normally direct evidence is not available and the Court is required to draw its conclusions from the attending circumstances. In the instant case, it appears that the conduct of Mst. Lali is highly doubtful and casts a serious doubt about her veracity. In the first instance, there was no necessity of her going to the accused when he called her because she could have seen the fact that there was no bundle of wood lying there for which the accused is alleged to have summoned her. It is very intriguing that the above offence was committed in a pit. Normally when such an act is to be concealed from the public, a lonely place like pit is selected. From the statement of Mst. Lali, it appears that she offered lot of resistance and caused scratches to the person of the accused but no such external injuries were found either on her person or on the person of the accused. She has stated that while committing this offence, the accused continued to press her throat. If the above statement is correct then she could have definitely offered successful resistance and could have freed herself from the clutches of the accused. Even her conduct after the commission of the above offence is also highly abnormal when she went to the well in order to wash out her Ghaghra. This clearly shows that she wanted to destroy the evidence of intercourse or rape. Even her conduct after the commission of the above offence is also highly abnormal when she went to the well in order to wash out her Ghaghra. This clearly shows that she wanted to destroy the evidence of intercourse or rape. Thereafer, she lifted her wood and went to her house without making any complaint to any other person who met her on the way. She narrated the incident to her sister and then both of them went to her mother and then report was lodged. There is also tampering with the important document Ex. P. 3. The Investigating Officer has added the above line afterwards so that it may be found consistent with her statement. It is also important to note that she was taken about 30 to 40 feets away from the place where the accused asked her to come. In other words, the accused forcibly took her 30-40 feets away in a pit. This is not normally possible. If proper resistance is offered, she could have cried for help because at that time her mouth was not gagged. Even her bangles were not broken. Hence the possibility cannot be ruled out that she was a consenting party. The medical evidence is also not supportive. ( 11 ) FOR the above reasons, I hold that the learned trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence and thus the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment dated 10-12-1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Bhilwara Camp Shahpura and acquit the accused-appellant Chirag Khan of the offence under S. 376, IPC. The accused-appellant Chirag Khan is in judicial custody. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.