JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.: The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the accused stands convicted by die learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, vide judgment dated 6.5.1991 for the offence under section 376 read with section 511 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to fine of Rs.3000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is this. PW Sant Ram and PW Ratni Devi were married to each other about 15 years before the alleged occurrence. They have five children including Kumari Rita Devi, who at the relevant time was of about six years of age., 3. On 12.6.1989 at about 5.30 P.M. PW Ratni Devi had gone to answer the call of nature. While so going she left her daughter Kumari Rita Devi in the "Khaliyan". When she returned after some time, she heard the cries of her daughter Kumari Rita near "Satehri". On reaching the spot she found Kumari Rita lying on the ground while the accused was lying on her with his pants off. Kumari Rita was weeping. She asked the accused as to what he was doing whereupon he lifted his pant and ran away. PW Ratni on going near her daughter found plums in her both hands. She carried Kumari Rita house. On the way she met PW Bohri to whom the occurrence was narrated by her. On reaching home, she also narrated the occurrence to her mother-in-law PW Smt. Shanti Devi. There was swelling on the private part of Kumari Rita, which was reddish in colour. PW Sant Ram, who was away to the house of his in-laws returned at about 8.30 A.M. when the occurrence was narrated to him by his wife PW Ratni Devi. He alongwith his wife took Kumari Rita to Namhol Hospital. However, the doctor was not available. Only a peon was present. PW Sant Ram thereafter went to police station Barmana where the report Ex. P A was made on the basis of which a case under section 376/511, Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide FIR No.48 of 1989 at about 3.30 P.M. 4. Kumari Rita was got medically examined at District Hospital, Bilaspur on 13.6.1989 and medico legal certificate Ex. PB was obtained. 5. The accused was arrested on 13.6.1989. P A was made on the basis of which a case under section 376/511, Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide FIR No.48 of 1989 at about 3.30 P.M. 4. Kumari Rita was got medically examined at District Hospital, Bilaspur on 13.6.1989 and medico legal certificate Ex. PB was obtained. 5. The accused was arrested on 13.6.1989. His pant Ex.P-1 which he was wearing at the time of occurrence was taken into possession. He was also subjected to medical examination and was found to be capable of performing sexual intercourse. 6. Thus on a case haying been found against the accused for the offence under section 376/511, Indian Penal Code, he was accordingly challaned and sent up for trial. 7. On a charge having been framed against him for the offence under section 376/511 Indian Penal Code, the accused did not plead guilty. The defence put forth by the accused in his statement under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure is hat he has been falsely implicated. He has stated that he was having illicit relations with PW Ratni. She demanded money from his for a "Mela". He refused to pay the money as demanded by her as a result of which he came to be falsely implicated in the present case. 8. The prosecution in support of its case in order to bring home the offence against the accused examined thirteen witnesses in all. No defence was led by the accused. 9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence led before him came to the conclusion that a case for the offence under section 376/511, Indian Penal Code, stood proved and established against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused for the said offences as aforesaid. 10. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, it has been contended on behalf of the accused that the findings of the learned trial Court are based merely on surmises and conjectures, there being no legal evidence on the record against the accused. The medical evidence coming on the record shows that there were no signs of an attempted rape. The oral evidence consists of vital contradictions rendering the entire prosecution story doubtful. 11. The learned Assistant Advocate General, on the other hand, has supported the conviction and sentences for the reasons and on the grounds stated in the impugned judgment. The medical evidence coming on the record shows that there were no signs of an attempted rape. The oral evidence consists of vital contradictions rendering the entire prosecution story doubtful. 11. The learned Assistant Advocate General, on the other hand, has supported the conviction and sentences for the reasons and on the grounds stated in the impugned judgment. 12. Before a person can be held guilty for the offence under section 511, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove - (a) that the act amounted to an attempt; (b) that it was an attempt to commit an offence under the Indian Penal Code; and (c) that the offence is punishable with imprisonment. 13. Though it may not be possible to give a precise or exhaustive definition of "attempt" it may be broadly stated that an intentional act which a person does towards the commission of an offence but which fails in its object through circumstances independent of the volition of that person is "attempt" (See: State of U.P. v. Ram Charan AIR 1962 Allahabad 359. 14. The Apex Court in Abhayananda Misra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698 while dealing with the question of "attempt" within the meaning of section 511, Indian Penal Code, has held that the question whether a certain act amounts to an attempt to commit a particular offence is a question of fact dependent on the nature of the offence and the steps necessary to take in order to commit it. It was further held that no exhaustive precise definition of what would amount to an attempt to commit an offence was possible. 15. Summarising the view about the construction of section 511, Indian Penal Code, the Apex Court observed:- "A person commits the offence of attempt to commit a particular offence when (i) he intends to commit that particular offence; and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission; such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence." Elaborating on the distinction between "preparation" and "attempt" the Apex Court has observed in para 11 of the judgment: - "There is a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence. Undoubtedly, a culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence, therefore, can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, be commences his attempt to commit the offence. This is clear from the general expression attempt to commit an offence1 and is exactly what the provisions of S.511,1.PC. require." Keeping in view die above principle, the evidence coming on the record is required to be appreciated. As per the prosecution story PW Ratni on the relevant date at about 5.30 P.M. after leaving her daughter Kumari Rita in the "Khaliyan" (a place meant for thrashing of crop) went to answer the call of nature. While returning she heard the cries of her daughter. On reaching the spot she found her daughter lying on the ground and the accused was lying on her with the pants off. On her having asked as to what he was doing, the accused is alleged to have run away after picking up his pants. 16. PW-5 Dr. Rama Singh had carried out the medical examination of Kumari Rita on 13.6.1989. Her observations were:- "There were no signs of external injury on the body. No signs of injury on private parts. Hymen was intact. There was no discharge. There was no bleeding. Milk teeth temporary 20 in numbers." 17. In her statement before the Court as PW 5, the doctor has categorically stated that she gave her opinion that there was no signs of attempt to rape since she did not find any swelling or tenderness or raddishness on the private parts of the girl. 18. PW 2 Ratni Devi, on the contrary, has stated that on reaching home after she had narrated the occurrence to her mother-in-law PW 3 Smt. Shanti Devi, she and her mother-in-law had noticed swelling on the private part of Kumari Rita Devi and there was raddishness. PW 3 Smt. Shanti is silent on this aspect. 18. PW 2 Ratni Devi, on the contrary, has stated that on reaching home after she had narrated the occurrence to her mother-in-law PW 3 Smt. Shanti Devi, she and her mother-in-law had noticed swelling on the private part of Kumari Rita Devi and there was raddishness. PW 3 Smt. Shanti is silent on this aspect. The version given by PW 2 stands belied by PW 5 Dr. Rama Singh, who did not find either swelling or raddishness on the private part of Kumari Rita. Nothing has been suggested to PW5 that the swelling and/or raddishness if any, could have subsided/disappeared during the intervening period. 19. PW 4 Smt. Bohri, who is alleged to have met PW 2 Ratni on the way and to whom she is alleged to have narrated the occurrence, has not supported the prosecution case. She has categorically denied having met PW 2 Ratni Devi on the way on the relevant day. Though the witness was got declared hostile and was subjected to vigorous cross examination by the prosecution, nothing could be brought on record to show that either she was suppressing the truth or was in any manner interested in the accused. 20. Much reliance has been placed by the prosecution as well as the trial court on the observations made by the trial court after the examination of PW 4 Smt. Bohri. The trial court observed:- "The possibility that the witness may have deposed falsely cannot be ruled out." 21. It is significant to note that no grounds/reasons have been recorded by the learned trial court which led it to make the above observations. Making of such observations without there being any reasons/grounds therefor is meaningless and no reliance can be placed on such observations. Even in the impugned judgment the learned trial court while relying upon such observations, has not advanced any reasons therefor. While dealing with the evidence of PW4 Smt. Bohri the learned trial court in para 12 of its judgment has observed:- "I have carefully perused the statement of this witness and had also additional privilege of having seen the witness being examined in my presence only about three months ago. I had also recorded my observation when the statement of this witness was concluded that the possibility that the witness may have deposed falsely cannot be ruled out. I had also recorded my observation when the statement of this witness was concluded that the possibility that the witness may have deposed falsely cannot be ruled out. To my mind, the witness had deposed falsely and, therefore, this observation was made by me." 22. In the absence of reasons/grounds, the learned trial court should not have recorded the observation, referred to above, about the truthfulness of PW 4 Smt Bohri. No reliance can be placed on such an observation. 23. It is further significant to note that the observation about the credibility of PW 4 Smt. Bohri has been made by the learned Sessions Judge when the entire prosecution evidence had not concluded. Under the law, the Court is not authorised under section 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to record any remarks about the credibility or the substance of the deposition of a witness untill the whole of the evidence has been taken, since such a course would amount to pre-judging the case. (See: Harbans Singh v. Daroga Singh & ors., AIR 1957 Patna 661: and Amar Singh Bakhtawar Singh v. The State AIR 1954 Punjab 282. 24. A material contradiction has come in the evidence of PW 1 Sant Ram and that of PW 2 Smt. Ratni. According to PW 2 the occurrence took place in the "khaliyan" (the place meant for thrashing of crop) where she had left her daughter while going to answer the call of nature. On the other hand the version given by PW 1 is that when his wife had gone out to answer the call of nature, his daughter Kumari Rita went in search of her mother. She was met on the way by the accused, who after offering plums to her took her to the "stehari" (the place meant for tethering cattle). In other words, according to PW 1 the occurrence took place in "stehari". This material contradiction as to the place of occurrence cannot be brushed aside. The learned trial court appears to have lost sight of such vital contradiction. 25. Yet another contradiction coming in the evidence of PW 2 Smt. Ratni i and her mother-in-law PW 3 Smt. Shanti is with regard to the clothes which Kumari Rita was wearing at the time of alleged occurrence. The learned trial court appears to have lost sight of such vital contradiction. 25. Yet another contradiction coming in the evidence of PW 2 Smt. Ratni i and her mother-in-law PW 3 Smt. Shanti is with regard to the clothes which Kumari Rita was wearing at the time of alleged occurrence. PW 2 has deposed that Kumari Rita was not wearing any salwar at the relevant time. PW 3 on the other hand has stated that Kumari Rita was wearing a salwar when she went out and came back with PW 2. The learned trial court has ignored this contradiction by observing that the contradiction was of a minor nature and did not effect the merits of the case particularly when the witnesses were deposing after more than 1 1/2 years. 26. The contradiction cannot be termed as a minor one. The presence of salwar assumes significance since if Kumari Rita was actually wearing the salwar, the same should have been taken into possession by the police and sent for chemical examination for detection of stains of blood or spermatozoa. 27. Pant Ex.Pl belonging to the accused was taken into possession by the police and the same was sent to Chemical Examiner, Patiala. However, the report of such examination has not been proved in evidence in the present case. In fact, no such report has come on the record. Why the report has been withheld by the police? No reasons are forthcoming. The only inference is that such a report, if produced, would not have supported the prosecution case. 28. Admittedly, the accused is the first cousin of PW 1. Their houses are adjoining each other. PW 2 admitted that they are on visiting terms and their relations are cordial. This gives some credence to the defence version that the accused might be carrying on with some calendestine relationship with PW 2 and on his having failed to concede to her demands, the present case might have been foisted on him. 29. Considering the entire evidence in its totality, the only irresistible conclusion is that a case under section 376/511, Indian Penal Code does not stand proved against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 30. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under section 376/511, Indian Penal Code. 30. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under section 376/511, Indian Penal Code. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and discharged. The amount of fine, if already deposited, shall be refunded to the accused forthwith.