JUDGMENT 1. -This is an appeal under section 374(2) Criminal procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 11.4.1996 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Churu, in Special Case No. 64 of 1994 convicted the appellant Sher Singh of offence under section 376 IPC and sentenced him to 8 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,000/- 2. The relevant facts are these:- During the year 1994 Sher Singh appellant stood posted as a teacher in Higher Primary School at Sohanpalsar under Police Station Sardar Shahar, Distt. Churu. In all five or six teachers stood posted in the school at the relevant time. PW 9 Shri Jai Chand Lal was the Head Master since 6.7.1984, then the appellant since 25,2.1988, then a lady teacher PW 1 Smt. Dropadi Morya, a member of Scheduled Caste, since August 1993 and then PW 2 Shri Namo Narayan and PW 3 Shri Sampat La I who both had joined the school on 11.7.1994 on their first appointment. The last three were perobationers. One more teacher, DW 1 Dana Ram had also remained posted there from 7.1.1989 to 7.7.1993 but had been on deputation for two months w.e.f. 16.8.1991 to another school at Bhalel. One Mahendra Singh is also stated to be posted. 3. The school building at Sonpalsar is situated in a village and is surrounded by inhabitated residences of villagers. As the site map Ex. P/3 and its details shows (Ex. P/3A) and which were not disputed before me by either sides, the school building consists of 15 rooms, three on western side, four on eastern side and .eight on southern side with wide open space in front of them. On the northern side There is the main entrance. Majority of teachers including the Head Master used to occupy some of the rooms for their residences. At the relevant time PW 1 Smt. Dropadi, PW 2 Namo Narayan, PW 3 Sampat Lal and Sher Singh appellant appear to be residing in four separate rooms of the school building. Since Shri Jai Chand Lal, Head Master had got his own house constructed in the village, he had shifted there. 4. It is in the above back-ground that a written report (Ex. P/1) was presented by PW 1 Smt. Dropadi before PW 7 Gurudev Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Sardar Shahar at 7.00 a.m. on 13.7.1994. Since Shri Jai Chand Lal, Head Master had got his own house constructed in the village, he had shifted there. 4. It is in the above back-ground that a written report (Ex. P/1) was presented by PW 1 Smt. Dropadi before PW 7 Gurudev Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Sardar Shahar at 7.00 a.m. on 13.7.1994. It was alleged in the said report that after taking her meal on 11.7.1994 when Smt. Dropadi had retired for night-rest and was lying on her cot in the sehan alongwith her 31/2years aged child, at about 8.00 p.m. the appellant started troubling her whereupon she scolded him and went into her room and bolted the same from inside, that in the room Dropadi started writing a letter to her father complaining to him about the apprehension to her honour, that the appellant approached the window on the back side of the room and apologised for his misconduct and requested hero open the door of the room and come out in the Sehan to sleep there, that on assurances given by the appellant, Dropadi opened the door and the appellant lifted the sleeping child and Dropadi followed him to the Sehan where her cot was lying and thereon the mother and the child lay for night rest. It was further alleged that at about 12.00 O'clock, the appellant caught hold of Smt. Dropadi, lifted her petticoat and despite protest and resistance and cries raised by her committed rape on her, with her child sleeping by her side. Though dropadi raised hue and cries during the course of commission of rape on her by the appellant but no body came to her rescue. After completing the sex-act the appellant was alleged to have retired after leaving a threatening to Dropadi for not telling the incident to any body. On the following morning Dropadi did not go to the school and continued weeping in her room till PW 3 Sampat Lal approached her and asked her to go to the school. Thereupon, she went to the school and narrated the incident to PW 9 Shri Jai Chand Lal, Head Master who arranged a conveyance and accompanied Dropadi to the Police Station. 5. On the basis of the report (Ex. P/1), lodged by Dropadi PW 9 Shri Gurudev Singh SHO registered Crime No. 149/94 under section 376 IPC and Section 3(12), SC/ST Act, 1989 vide Ex. 5. On the basis of the report (Ex. P/1), lodged by Dropadi PW 9 Shri Gurudev Singh SHO registered Crime No. 149/94 under section 376 IPC and Section 3(12), SC/ST Act, 1989 vide Ex. P/3, forwarded the case to PW 10 Shri Vinod Bangad, Addl. SP for investigation and sent Dropadi for medical examination. 6. PW 4 Dr. K.K. Mishra, the then Medical Jurist at Govt. Hospital, Sardar Shahar examined Dropadi on 13.7.1994 at 1.35 p.m. but found no marks of injuries on her neck, face, chest, breast, back, buttocks, thighs, vulva or vagina, on or around her external genitals, fourchette and posterior commisure. On examination of her clothes, which she was allegedly putting on at the time of alleged rape on her and which she had changed and were produced before him on 14.7.1994 at 11.15 a.m. Dr. Misra found no tearing, no stains, no foreign hair or fibre present on them. Only a very very light stain at one place was noticed on her pink coloured petticoat. Dr. Mishra obtained two slides of vaginal swab from the posterior forenix of vagina of the victim and sent the same alongwith her petticoat and underwear for chemical examination. He subjected his final opinion regarding recent commission of sex act with the victim to the result of chemical examination. No report from the chemical examiner and from the serologist till examination of Dr. Misra on 30.1.1975 in Court was recorded. Dr. Misra, therefore, opined that no signs or marks evidencing recent sexual intercourse with Smt. Dropadi were there for a positive opinion in that respect. 7. PW 10 Shri Vinod Bangad Addl. SP and after him PW 8 Shri Murlidhar, Dy. SP completed the investigation of the case. Whereas Shri Bangad had conducted the preliminary investigation and in the course of such investigation had seized the cloths of Smt. Dropadi, Shri Murlidhar Dy. SP arrested the appellant on 8.8.1984 at 4.00 p.m. and seized his cloths viz a green lungi and an underwear, which had no stains of semen as they had been washed away. PW 5 Banwari Lal, Head Moharrir had deposited the sealed cloths of the victim and the appellant in the police Malkhana on 16.7.1994 wherefrom PW 6 Mahavir Singh constable had taken them to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan at Jaipur. 8. PW 5 Banwari Lal, Head Moharrir had deposited the sealed cloths of the victim and the appellant in the police Malkhana on 16.7.1994 wherefrom PW 6 Mahavir Singh constable had taken them to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan at Jaipur. 8. After having completed the investigation in the manner stated above a report under section 173 Criminal procedure Code was submitted before the concerned Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Churu. The learned Sessions Judge tried the appellant on the charges under section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. He acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 3(2)(v)of the SC/ST Act but, as stated above, convicted and sentenced him for offence under section 376 IPC. 9. Mr. M.K. Garg, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and totally ignored the facts and circumstances under which the incident was alleged to have taken place. The learned counsel not only assailed the probability of the prosecution theory itself, being, in any manner, truthful but also dealt at length with the statements of the alleged victim and PW 9 Jai Chand Lal Head Master and with the help of the facts obtained from the statement of the Head Master and proved through the oral and documentary evidence produced by the defence the learned counsel vehemently urged that the instant case was a glaring instance of exhibition of the anger and annoyance by a superior officer at his subordinate with the assistance of three other subordinates whose very services in the wake of wide spread unemployment, were at his mercy. Mr. Garg greatly lamented that the oral evidence in the case was not at all tested and examined at the altar of normal human conduct and in the light of the likelihood or possibility of such an offences being committed under the given circumstances. 10. Mr. D.S. Rathore the learned Public Prosecutor submitted in reply that the statement of the victim of a sexual assault not being in the nature of that of an accomplice in a crime was required to be accepted without the requirement of any corroborative evidence in support thereto. Mr. 10. Mr. D.S. Rathore the learned Public Prosecutor submitted in reply that the statement of the victim of a sexual assault not being in the nature of that of an accomplice in a crime was required to be accepted without the requirement of any corroborative evidence in support thereto. Mr. Rathore submitted that in our social set-up no lady, much less an educated lady like PW 1 Smt. Dropadi Morya, would like to come-forward and allege, with no reasons, the commission of a sexual offence against her and put her honour to stake by making a false accusation. The learned Public Prosecutor thus submitted that offences of sexual assaults against helpless women-folk, particularly living in village background, are required to be strictly dealt with and offenders punished. In support of his arguments Mr. Rathore referred to and relied upon the cases of State of Maharashtra v. C.K. Jain, 1990 SCC (Criminal) 210 , Karnel Singh v. State of M.P.,J.T. 1995(6) SC 437 , Bodhi Sattav Gautani v. Subhra Chaudhary, AIR 1996 SC 922 and State of Punjab v. Gurtnit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393 . 11. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on making the study of the cases relied upon by Mr. Rathore in the light of the facts and circumstances attending on the commission of alleged rape on Smt. Dropadi by the appellant entertain no doubt that the prosecution theory as well as the evidence adduced in support of such theory is not only totally false and inherently improbable but is also found to be a designed concoction by a superior officer of an educational institution against his apparently assertive subordinate. 12. Given to the conditions our people live in, a member of fair sex deserves all respect and regard as production, a quality of the Almighty, is her function and protection is her necessity and demand. Attached with ethical and religious values, as our society is, sexual assault against women folk has always been considered by our people as not only a condemnable, disgraceful and grave offence against the victim of such assault only but also against the society at large as such offences cause a permanent injury and damage to the very psych of the victim, thus adversely affecting the very personality of persons around her and also coming in future through her. In the conditions our people in villages or semi-developed cities live, it may be too easy to make accusation of sexual assault by a woman against a male member of the society but too difficult to prove; but whenever instances of such assaults are brought before the Courts those are required to be viewed at and approached with all sensitivity and sensibility. The victim of such assault is never in the position of an accomplice. Her testimony needs no corroboration for it acceptance, provided her version fits in the facts and circumstances of the given case. There is no rule of law or of evidence requiring corroboration to her testimony before its acceptance by Court. The only rule applicable in such cases is that of care and caution to be adopted in approaching her version and making appreciation of her testimony. The facts and circumstances attending on the commission of alleged assault on her would by themselves provide sufficient and reliable corroborative evidence. In many a cases, the condition of her body and cloths and her own conduct, exhibited at the time of commission of the sexual assault against her and subsequent thereto would provide the required corroboration, if needed, to her oral testimony. Therefore, the main requirement in such cases is that the mind of the Judge should be alive to the naturally existing corroborative evidence coming from the natural circumstances of the case and normal human conduct of the parties concerned. That seems to me to be the gist of the decisions cited by Mr. Rathore before me. 13. Now coming to the merits of the instant case it needs emphasis that the offence under section 376 IPC is alleged to have been to limitted against a lady teacher by a male-teacher, in the premises of an educational institution situated in the abadi of a village and at the relevant time undisputedly partly inhabited by two other co-teachers of the same institution. It is in the presence of the unchallenged facts that the worth and value of the testimony of the prosecutrix herself as also that of other witnesses present on or around the place of occurrence at the relevant time has to be examined. 14. PW Smt. Dropadi Morya is the alleged victim of the heinous crime. It is in the presence of the unchallenged facts that the worth and value of the testimony of the prosecutrix herself as also that of other witnesses present on or around the place of occurrence at the relevant time has to be examined. 14. PW Smt. Dropadi Morya is the alleged victim of the heinous crime. She is a married woman of 23 years, living in one of the rooms of the school with her 31 /2 or 4 years old male-child having joined that institution in August 1993. During the early period of her posting there, one or the other relation, gave her company in the said room for intermittent durations but at the time of the alleged occurrence she was living alone with her child. As stated above besides Smt. Morya, PW 2 Namo Narayana, PW 3 Sampat Lal and also the appellant Sher Singh occupied three separate rooms in the school building. With this position the version given by,Smt. Morya is that at about 8.00 p.m. when she was lying on her cot in the Sehan with her child the appellant began to take liberty with her and when despite her protest he did not give up his misbehaviour she went inside her room and bolted the same from inside. On being cross-examined on the point she stated that at that time PW 2 Shri Namo Narain was there in the school and had woke up and then went away. It is highly improbable that the appellant would misbehave with a fellow-female teacher in that way in the presence of another co-teacher and the co-teacher would take no notice of such conduct of his colleague and would not inform the head of the institution, living in that very village, of such an incident at such early hours of night. Proceeding, further, it is noted that Smt. Morya has further stated that after her returning to her room the appellant had reached the window in the back portion of the room, apologised for his mis-behaviour and asked her to come out of the room and sleep outside and on assurances given by the appellant she opened the doors of the room, the appellant lifted her child, she followed him and slept on her cot. It is difficult to accept this version. It is difficult to accept this version. Had she been misbehaved by the appellant in the presence of another fellow teacher who had by that time left the school premises, Smt. Morya, being a young and educated lady would not have believed the assurances of a per in who had allegedly tried to take liberty with her even in the presence of other perset persons. This part too of her testimony inspires no confidence in me. Then, she stated that at about 12'O clock in the night the appellant approached her, lay upon and committed rape on her while her child continued to sleep on the same Cot without getting up. This version too is not-believable. Not only that her body and cloths, as examined by the doctor on the third day, give no corroboration to her said version of protest and resistance but also that she being a young lady, fairly nourished, and with no weapon with the appellant at that time, would not allow easily a male to take control of herself in that way without sustaining some marks of injuries on her body and tears on her cloths. Her version of raising hues and cries is also not believable as if that had been so and any incident would have taken place in that manner, the inhabitants of the houses just adjoining the school premises would have naturally stood attached to the place of occurrence. She further stated that after the incident she slept on her Cot and the appellant on the "kund". This sort of conduct of an offended and an offender is not in accordance with normal human conduct. After having committed such an offence against a fellow teacher without her consent and against her wishes the appellant could have hardly stayed on or around the place of occurrence, particularly when it was a school premises surrounded by inhabited houses and was going to open for the students and members of staff in the very morning to follow the incident. Then again, Smt. Morya stated that in the morning she did not go to the office and on being called by the Head Master through PW 3 Sampat Rain reached there and narrated the incident to him. Then again, Smt. Morya stated that in the morning she did not go to the office and on being called by the Head Master through PW 3 Sampat Rain reached there and narrated the incident to him. It is not easily acceptable that if she had been raped in the night she would go to the office on mere summoning of the Head Master and knowing about commission of a heinous crime against her the Head Master would not take immediate action against the appellant and would not like to apprise his superiors of the incident in the school premises. She has further stated that the Head Master arranged for a camel cart and then she went to Police Station at Sardar Shahar alongwith the Head Master and lodged the report. Leaving aside as to who and how the report was lodged and also the delay was caused in reporting the matter to the police, it is significant to note that no such report in writing was made by her to her immediate boss for legal and departmental action against the appellant, a fact which has been falsely asserted by PW 9 Jai Chand Lal without producing any such report. Had that been a fact PW 9 Jai Chand Lal Head Master would have forwarded the said report, with his endorsement thereon as per office procedure, either to the police and/or to his immediate superior officer. Why was that normal procedure not followed, could not be explained by the learned Public Prosecutor before me. 15. The above discussion clearly discloses that the testimony of the prosecutrix in this case is full of inherent improbabilities, unnatural human conduct and does not at all fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Her testimony inspires no confidence at all in me and therefore, cannot be accepted on it face value. 16. PW 2 Namo Narain and PW 3 Sampat Lal are the two probationer-teachers. According to them PW 2 Namo Narain used to reside in one of the rooms in the school building and PW 3 Sampat Lal in a separate quarter outside the school building. This version too seems to me to be some-what untrue in the presence of the version of the situation. According to them PW 2 Namo Narain used to reside in one of the rooms in the school building and PW 3 Sampat Lal in a separate quarter outside the school building. This version too seems to me to be some-what untrue in the presence of the version of the situation. If there was a separate residential quarter outside school premises, the Head Master would have naturally preferred to allot the same to a lady teacher, who was posted there from before and not to a male teacher who had joined the institution all alone a few months back. PW 3 Sampat Lal whs not having his family and would have liked to reside along with other teachers and the appellant in tine rooms of the school. Therefore, it seems more natural that he was also residing in one of the rooms in the school building. Any way, both these witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The version given by them in their hostile testimony was to the effect that they both had slept at the room of PW 3 Sampat Lal situate outside the school premises. PW 2 Namo Narain stated that when in the morning he had reached the office he found the appellant on duty and since Smt. Dropadi had not come to the school the Head Master sent PW 3 Sampat Lal to call her from her room. PW 3 Sampat Lal told that on first call Dropadi did not accompany him to the Head Master's room but on second call she did. According to PW 2 Namo Narain, to the Head Master Dropadi first told that she was not feeling well and wanted to remain on leave for that day but on asking by the Head Master again she stated that she had lost all her belongings (chastity). On being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor they denied that the appellant made any extra-judicial confession to the Head Master as was alleged by PW 9 Jai Chand Lal and not even endorsed by the prosecutrix. 17. It is the settled position of law that the testimony of hostile witness is not to be thrown away in to. On being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor they denied that the appellant made any extra-judicial confession to the Head Master as was alleged by PW 9 Jai Chand Lal and not even endorsed by the prosecutrix. 17. It is the settled position of law that the testimony of hostile witness is not to be thrown away in to. His testimony has to he appreciated like the testimony of any other witness and in sifting his evidence in that way attempt should be made to separate the grain from the chaff and truthful part of his testimony should be accepted and the untruthful part rejected. This has to be done in reading the statement as a whole in the light of other evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the given case. PW 2 Namo Narain and PW 3 Sampat Lal were admittedly posted in the institution as teachers and living in the rooms of the school building. PW 1 Smt. Morya asserted the presence of PW 2 Namo Narain at the time when the appellant allegedly started taking liberty with her at about 8.00 a.m. and she went to her room and bolted the same from inside. As stated above, had any occurrence of the nature stated by Smt. Dropadi taken place in the presence of PW 2 Namo Narain there was no reason for him to have not communicated such information to the Head Master during that very night or to have shared his knowledge with his colleague PW 3 Sampat Lal. Neither of them support PW 1 Dropadi in the allegations made by her in her statement in Court. There is no reason for the Court to presume that they had sided with the appellant. By the time they were examined in Court they were still probationers and as such might be under the influence of their reporting officer, the Head Master and not the appellant who could have hardly helped them in a favourable report. 18. PW 9 Jai Chand Lal is the Head Master. He has stated that on being called for the second time Smt. Morya had moved an application for leave before him and started weeping and complained of the appellant having committed rape on her during the night. 18. PW 9 Jai Chand Lal is the Head Master. He has stated that on being called for the second time Smt. Morya had moved an application for leave before him and started weeping and complained of the appellant having committed rape on her during the night. He further stated that he arranged for a camel cart and took Smt. Morya with him to the Police Station and got the incident reported to the police. The Head Master asserted that the appellant, who was also present at that time made a confessional statement to him. In the cross-examination he stated that at Sardar Shahar he contacted the Deputy Education Officer and had taken him to the Police Station. Though this witness is found to have played the prominent part in the registration of the case against the appellant, yet neither any reference to the alleged extra-judicial confession of the appellant was made in the FIR (Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/2) nor the presence of the Deputy Education Officer was recorded by the police in the note appended thereto. Neither Dropadi and Sampat Lal stated the presence of the Deputy Education Officer nor the Deputy Education Officer came forward to support such a version of the Head Master. No document showing that this witness even tried to report such a heinous offence, having allegedly been committed in the school, to his superior officer was brought on the record of the case. Had he really apprised the Distt. Education Officer of the incident that senior officer must have placed his endorsement on the report of Dropadi and reported the matter to higher authorities as it was no less than a sensational happening in an educational institution. The witness does not appear to have even informed the husband or other relative of Smt. Morya of the incident. Had such an incident really taken place in the school premises there could have been no possibility of the appellant attending to his duties in the very morning as that would not have been the natural conduct of a guilty person. Instead it was the conduct of an innocent person. The news of such an incident, if one had really happened, was bound to spread like a wild fire in the village and the appellant would have found it difficult to stay there under those circumstances. Instead it was the conduct of an innocent person. The news of such an incident, if one had really happened, was bound to spread like a wild fire in the village and the appellant would have found it difficult to stay there under those circumstances. This witness PW 9 is found not only an unreliable and untrustworthy witness but also his testimony is found tainted with and malice against the appellant. 19. The witness has admitted that after him the appellant was the senior teacher and in his absence the appellant used to work as incharge of the institution. He has further stated that DW 2 Dana Ram was also one of the teachers in the institution and was allowed by the appellant to go on deputation in absence of PW 9 Jai Chand Lal Head Master. The witness asked for the explanation of the appellant for relieving Dana Ram in his absence. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 313 Criminal procedure Code and DW 2 Dana Ram have stated on oath that the witness had felt annoyed at the appellant for his relieving Dana Ram in his absence. In his cross-examination the witness, though denied that off and on he used to remain absent from duty but on return he used to mark his presence in the relevant register despite appellants making a line at the appropriate place in the attendance register and that despite his occupying three rooms of the institution for his residence PW 9 Jai Chand Lal Head Master paid rent for one room only whereas he used to charge full rent @ 71/2% for one room from the appellant, yet the sworn statements of DW 1 Sher Singh and DW 2 Dana Ram in that behalf get ample support from manipulated entries in the attendance register for teachers proved as Ex. D/3 at the trial. All this evidence sufficiently shows that this witness was annoyed with the appellant and could have reasons to falsely implicate him with the help of other subordinate members of the staff on whom the witness was in a position to exercise undue influence which, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, he seems to have done. 20. All this evidence sufficiently shows that this witness was annoyed with the appellant and could have reasons to falsely implicate him with the help of other subordinate members of the staff on whom the witness was in a position to exercise undue influence which, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, he seems to have done. 20. In view of the above discussion, I face no difficulty in holding that the prosecution theory is not only highly improbable and untrustworthy inspiring not the least confidence in me but also is, as the circumstances of the case loudly speak, a piece of concoction designedly cooked up by none -else but the Head of the institution PW 9 Jai Chand Lal against his subordinate. It is really painful 'to notice that a responsible officer of Education Deptt. thought of taking vengeance from his subordinate in such a disgraceful manner. Judicial restraint impels me that this Court, instead of taking any action against PW 9 Jai Chand Lal at it own for making a mockery of the machinery of law, should leave the matter to the wisdom and conscience of the authorities concerned. 21. In the result the impugned judgment and order are hereby set aside and the appellant acquitted of the offence under section 376 IPC,, The appellant, if in jail and not wanted in any other case, be released forthwith. He is discharged of his bail bonds. The amount of fine, if any, realised from him, shall be returned to him. The appeal stands allowed. 22. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Director, Primary Education Rajasthan, Jaipur for information and necessary action, if any.Appeal allowed. *******